Special Issue Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2015, Vol. 7(11) 1–12
Ó The Author(s) 2015
Dynamic vehicle model for handling DOI: 10.1177/1687814015618126
aime.sagepub.com
performance using experimental data

SangDo Na1, JinSeok Jang1, KwangSuk Kim2 and WanSuk Yoo1

Abstract
An analytical vehicle model is essential for the development of vehicle design and performance. Various vehicle models
have different complexities, assumptions and limitations depending on the type of vehicle analysis. An accurate full vehicle
model is essential in representing the behaviour of the vehicle in order to estimate vehicle dynamic system performance
such as ride comfort and handling. An experimental vehicle model is developed in this article, which employs experimen-
tal kinematic and compliance data measured between the wheel and chassis. From these data, a vehicle model, which
includes dynamic effects due to vehicle geometry changes, has been developed. The experimental vehicle model was vali-
dated using an instrumented experimental vehicle and data such as a step change steering input. This article shows a pro-
cess to develop and validate an experimental vehicle model to enhance the accuracy of handling performance, which
comes from precise suspension model measured by experimental data of a vehicle. The experimental force data
obtained from a suspension parameter measuring device are employed for a precise modelling of the steering and han-
dling response. The steering system is modelled by a lumped model, with stiffness coefficients defined and identified by
comparing steering stiffness obtained by the measured data. The outputs, specifically the yaw rate and lateral accelera-
tion of the vehicle, are verified by experimental results.

Keywords
Vehicle dynamics, experimental vehicle model, kinematic and compliance characteristics, handling analysis

Date received: 26 June 2015; accepted: 21 October 2015

Academic Editor: Wuhong Wang

Introduction difficult to obtain all of the data necessary to define and

The advancement of vehicle dynamics simulation cap-
abilities has dramatically altered the vehicle develop-
ment process over time. Theoretical analysis methods
began as a means to provide fast and cost-effective
alternatives to physical testing. However, this often
came at the expense of accuracy and high-resolution
details. Experimental testing still provides valuable and
objective scientific data. With the development of com-
puter simulation technologies and the advancement of
computational capabilities, automotive testing in a vir-
tual simulation environment has become common.1
A common simulation tool used for automotive
applications is Automated Dynamic Analysis of
Mechanical Systems (ADAMS).2 However, it is often
execute the computational model. In such cases, the
model is often simplified. For this case, a simple model-
ling method is needed for vehicle analysis. The lumped
mass vehicle model with 14 degree of freedom (DOF)
is usually three-dimensional and simple model.3–5
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University,
Busan, Korea
2
Department of Automotive Engineering, Inha Technical College,
Incheon, Korea
Corresponding author:
WanSuk Yoo, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National
University, Busan 609-735, Korea.
Email: wsyoo@pusan.ac.kr

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

The experimental vehicle model (EVM) is one such

example, which uses the experimental data to define
parameters and characteristics of the automobile.6,7
Numerous coefficients and mathematical functions are
used to define trends through the experimental data.
Yuen et al.8 had focused on applying opposite test with
full vehicle model (FVM) to optimize the vehicle model
for the handling performance.
When the vehicle has run the handling test, the rela-
tive movement between wheel and body is different
since the coupling effect might be occurred by wheel
travel position of right and left sides. In order to better
represent the vehicle lateral and yaw dynamics due to
handling manoeuvre, the EVM should be considered
with all kinematic and compliance (K&C) data. The
model will then capture the vehicle handling character-
istics and the effects of structural parameters on the
suspension performance.
Section ‘Experimental vehicle model’ discusses some
Figure 1. Conventional vehicle models: (a) bicycle model and
of the ideas for modelling, which can be used on the
(b) 14 DOF.
K&C data. Section ‘Steering model’ explains the steer-
ing system dynamics, and a relation between steering
angle and torque is developed. The vehicle handling
simulation is discussed in section ‘Full car test’ and
compared with experiments to verify the accuracy.

EVM
Conventional vehicle models
There are numerous DOF associated with vehicle
dynamics. The most simplified vehicle dynamic model
is a 2-DOF bicycle model, representing the lateral and
yaw motions as shown in Figure 1(a). This model is
good for understanding the basics of vehicle dynamic.
However, the disadvantage is that it cannot reflect the
suspension and tire effects. Figure 2. Coordinate system used in vehicle model.
As shown in Figure 1(b), 14-DOF FVM consist of a
single sprung mass connected to four unsprung masses Vehicle coordinates
as vehicle body and wheels. These are represented as
horizontal 3 DOF (longitudinal, lateral translation and In three-dimensional space, the motion of the vehicle
yaw of vehicle body), vertical 7 DOF (vertical, roll and body and wheel can be viewed as rigid. Chassis and
pitch of vehicle body and each wheel vertical translation) relative movements with respect to the coordinate of
and tire 4 DOF model (each wheel rotation). This model the wheel can be expressed as shown in Figure 2.
is more accurate and well expresses the vehicle motion The position vector for body and wheel are
than the bicycle model. But this model does not have the yb = ½rb , ub  and yw = ½rw , uw , respectively. The relative
relative wheel movement with respect to body because it wheel position vector with respect to the chassis frame
cannot reflect the vehicle characteristics such as K&C. It is yw=b = ½rw=b , uw=b . The subscript ‘b’ refers to the chas-
means that the unsprung masses are allowed to bounce sis local vector, the subscript ‘w’ refers to the wheel
vertically with respect to the sprung mass only. local vector and the subscript ‘w/b’ refers to the relative
An EVM is a simpler model than a multi-body vector between wheel and chassis.
model, in which suspension data are measured from a
suspension parameter measuring device (SPMD). When
there does not exist enough data for constructing the SPMD test
multi-body vehicle model, the EVM model can be a The vehicle’s position is a function of the physical char-
good alternative. acteristics and kinematics of the suspension. The
Na et al. 3

Figure 3. Environment of SPMD: (a) equipment, (b) parallel suspension test, (c) opposite suspension test, (d) steer test and (e)
compliance test.

kinematics and compliant deflection of the vehicle sus- rw = rb + rw=b ð1Þ

pension can be obtained from experimental measure-
ments. In the current research effort, these data were It is expressed in the coordinate system of each body
obtained for a sport utility vehicle (SUV) using an frame as follows
SPMD test as shown in Figure 3(a). The test is divided
rw0 = Awb rb00 + Awb rw=b
00
ð2Þ
into two types: K&C test. The kinematic test is used to
measure the relative displacement between wheel and
where A is the transformation matrix between the
body with respect to wheel travel or steering angle as
frames. The prime (#) denotes a local vector defined in
shown in Figure 3(b)–(d). In the parallel or opposite
the wheel frame, and the double prime ($) denotes a
suspension test, the relative vehicle movement is chan-
local vector defined in the chassis frame. The velocity
ged when wheels move up and down along the same or
and the acceleration state of the wheel can be described
opposite direction, respectively. In the steer test, the
in symbolic form as shown in equations (3) and (4)
vehicle movement is measured as steering angle, and
wheel height is changed. The additional relative displa- y_ 0w = D  y_ 00b + E  y_ 00w=b ð3Þ
cement of the wheel due to the longitudinal and lateral
force and aligning moment inputs at the tire contact €y0w = D  €y00b + E  €y00w=b + h ð4Þ
patch is the suspension compliance. The compliance " #
   
test is used to measure coefficients with respect to r_ 0 w r_ 00 b r_ 00 w=b
forces and moments as shown in Figure 3(e). y_ 0 w = , y_ 00 b = , y_ 00 w=b =
w0 w w00 b w00 w=b
 " #
0   00 
€r 00
€r w €r b w=b
EVM €y0 w = , €y00 b = , €y00 w=b =
w_ 0 w w_ 00 b w_ 00 w=b
The global position of the wheel is defined as the sum    
Awb Awb~r0 w=b Awb 0
of position vectors between the chassis and wheel with D= , E=
respect to the chassis 0 Awb 0 Awb
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 4. Result of kinematic test with displacement: (a) parallel and opposite suspension test and fitting results and (b) steer test
and fitting results.
Na et al.
Figure 5. Result of compliance test with lateral force.
where matrices D and E represent the relation matrix
between wheel and chassis coordinates, respectively.
The vector h represents the Coriolis and centrifugal
terms.
To accurately model the vehicle movement on the
chassis system, the model must include the suspension
and steering characteristic. Thus, yw=b is the most
important factor to describe the vehicle model. It was
obtained from a SPMD test in the current research.
Data from the SPMD test are shown in Figures 4
and 5. Figure 4(a) shows the various displacements of
the wheels from the parallel and opposite test. The rela-
tive displacement of wheel with respect to chassis
changes as a curve of wheel travel. Figure 4(b) shows
the steering test result. The relative wheel displacements
change as a curve of the steering angle and wheel
travel. Figure 5 provides the compliance results describ-
ing the motion of the vehicle wheel by lateral forces.
The movement of the suspension is governed by the
vertical wheel travel. The vehicle model was developed
with parallel suspension test data. This assumes sym-
metric behaviour in order to simplify the modelling.
For the ride comfort test, this can be adequate and
appropriate. However, steering and opposite asym-
metric wheel displacements can affect the vehicle move-
ment on in a handling test. The parallel and opposite
suspension tests reveal the different movements with
5
respect to wheel travel, as shown in Figure 4(a). The
steering test also shows variation with respect to wheel
travel and steering angle, as shown in Figure 4(b).
These errors are due to several effects that exist in an
actual vehicle suspension but are not represented in the
vehicle model. To account for these effects, the oppo-
site suspension test results are superimposed on the
parallel suspension test results via fourth-order polyno-
mial curve. Error between experiment results and fitted
curve was shown in response to the full range of the
reference, which was less than 10%. Therefore, for the
convenience and efficiency of the mathematical model-
ling, the fitting method is used. In this article, the paral-
lel test curve describes the primary vehicle movement,
and the opposite test is used as to describing the
differences between the two tests. To account for the
differences between the parallel and steering suspension
test, the steering test curve is represented by expressing
a polynomial curve with respect to steering angle, and
the mean of the front wheel travels on the front. In
other words, the baseline curve is determined by the
steering angle, with additional changes from the wheel
heights taken from the mean of wheel travels.
Therefore, the relative wheel movements (yw=b ) can be
expressed by a fourth-order polynomial in terms of
wheel travel both sides (dwl , dwr ) and steering angle
(dstr ). These can be fitted as shown in Figure 3
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

 
    d00 + d00wr
y00w=b = Pparal d00wl + Poppo d00wl  d00wr + Pstr dstr , wl
2
0 1
where
B C
B   C
B 4 3 2 1 C
B Pparal d00wl = p4 d00wl + p3 d00wl + p2 d00wl + p1 d00wl + p0 , C
B C
B C
B   C
B Poppo Dd00 = m4 Dd00 4 + m3 Dd00 3 + m2 Dd00 2 + m1 Dd00 1 + m0 , C
B w w w w w C
B C ð5Þ
B C
B P d ,  00
 4 3 2 1 C
B str str d = s4 dstr + s3 dstr + s2 dstr + s1 dstr + s0 C
B C
B C
B 4 3 00 2 00 1 C
B + n4  d00 w + n3  d00 w + n2 dw + n1 dw + n0 , C
B C
B C
B 00 C
B Dd = d00  d00 , C
B w wl wr C
B C
B C
@ d00 + d00wr A

d00 = wl
2
   
where Pparal means the relative vehicle movement from €y00wl=b = P_ paral d00wl €d00 wl + P € paral d00 d_ 00 +   
wl wl
parallel test. Poppo is the gap between parallel and oppo-  
P_ oppo d00wl  d00wr €d00 wl
site test. And Pstr is the curve function to define relative  
displacements on the steering with respect to left and +P € oppo d00  d00 d_ 00 +   
wl wr wl
 
right wheel travel and steering angle. One is describing  
_Pstr dstr , dwl + dwr €dstr + €d00 wl +   
the main relative movement like as Pparal with respect 2
 
to steering angle. The other is the curve like as Poppo for d00wl + d00wr  _ 0

the gap when both wheel travels are changed. We have €
Pstr dstr , dstr + d_ wl
2
defined it as the mean value (d00 ) between wheel travel   00
heights, since the position of both wheel travels deter- = P_ paral + P_ oppo + P_ str d€wl +   
 
mines the suspension structure in the real vehicle as ∂P_ paral ∂P_ oppo ∂P_ str  _ 00 2 ∂P_ str  _ 2
+ + 00 dw + dstr
shown in Figure 3(d). To capture the wheel height ∂d00wl ∂d00wl ∂dwl ∂dstr
effect, an additional polynomial curve which represents ð8Þ
the mean of front wheel travel is superimposed.
An additional relative displacement of the wheel is where Pcomp is the relative displacement with respect to
the suspension compliance due to the longitudinal and F (force) and M (moment) represented in Figure 4.
lateral forces and aligning moment inputs at the tire. Pparal demonstrates the main vehicle movement as a
Since the amount of displacement is small, as shown in curve fit of the parallel test. Poppo is a curve describing
Figure 4, the compliance coefficients are assumed to be the differences between parallel and opposite test. It
linear. With the model now fully defined, the amount of uses polynomial curve fitting with respect to the gap
change in wheelbase, tread, camber angle and toe angle between the left and right sides of wheel travel. Pstr is a
is computed. These displacements are statically super- curve describing the relative displacements with respect
imposed on the relative displacements. to steering angle at specific wheel heights. The double
Polynomial curve fitting from SPMD test results are prime ($) is the local vector of the chassis frame.
used to describe y00w=b Relative velocity (_y00w=b ) and rela- Using equations (3) and (4), the velocity transforma-
tive acceleration (€y00w=b ) of the wheel to the body are tion matrix, which can define the relationship of the
derived from the following equations coordinate in terms of velocity, is expressed as equation
(9)
y00w=b = Pparel ðdwl Þ + Poppo ðdwl  dwr Þ
  y_ = Bq_
dwl + dwr ð6Þ
+ Pstr dstr , + Pcomp ðF, M Þ ð9Þ
2 €y = B€q + H
00 00
2 0 3
y_ 00wl=b = P_ parl ðdwl Þ  d_ wl + P_ oppo ðdwl  dwr Þ  d_ wl +     0  y_ b, 6 3 1  
  y_ b, 6 3 1 6 _ 00 7 06 3 1
  y_ = 0 , q_ = 4 dw, 4 3 1 5, H =
_Pstr dstr , dwl + dwr  d_ str + d_ wl ð7Þ y_ w, 5 3 1 h5 3 1
2 d_ str, 1 3 1
Na et al. 7

2 3
I6 3 6  
6 D Efl Pparel fl + Poppo fr + Pstr Efl Poppo fr + Pstr Efl ðPstr Þ 7
6 fl 7
6   7
6 D Efr Poppo fl + Pstr Efr Pparel fr + Poppo fl + Pstr Efr ðPstr Þ 7
B=6
6
fr
   
7
7
6 Drl P 7
6  rl + Poppo
Erl Pparel  rr E
 rl oppo rr  7
4 Drr Err Poppo rl Err Pparel rr + Poppo rl 5
Dstr ðPstr Þ

where B is the velocity transformation matrix,9 and H model that is widely used in vehicle dynamic simula-
represents the Coriolis and centrifugal term. D and E tions. It calculates the forces (Fx, Fy) and moments
are the matrices which define the relations between (Mx, My, Mz) acting on the tire under pure and com-
body coordinates. The subscripts ‘fl, fr, rl and rr’ refer bined slip conditions on arbitrary roads. It uses longi-
to front left, front right, rear left and rear right, respec- tudinal, lateral direction, turn slip, wheel inclination
tively. The subscript ‘str’ refers to the steering wheel. angle (‘camber’) and the vertical force (Fz) as input
The variational form of the equations of motion is quantities.
shown in equation (10) In the model, the interaction forces and moments
between the tire and the road surface are applied to a
dy0T ðM€y0  QÞ = 0 ð10Þ contact model. For these forces and moments to be cal-
culated, the longitudinal velocity and lateral velocity of
where M is mass matrix. Q is the generalized force in the contact point must be determined. This requires
each component of the body’s reference frame. calculation of the longitudinal slip and slip angle. For a
Using equations (9), equation (10) can be trans- small slip condition, we can define the practical slip
formed to the generalized coordinate space quantities a0 and k0 . The differential equation for these
02 3 2 0 31 quantities can be written as the following equation (13)
Mb 0 0 Qb
dqT BT @4 0 Mw 0 5fB€q + H g  4 Q0 w 5A = 0 dv
0 0 Mstr Q0 str sa + jx_ r jv =  sa y_ rs
dt ð13Þ
ð11Þ du
sk + jx_ r ju =  sk x_ rs
dt
Since dq is independent, equation (9) is valid for all
dq. Thus, the equation of motion for the vehicle For the slip, the practical slip quantities a0 and k0
model is have been defined

BT MB€q = BT Q  BT MH ð12Þ u
k0 = sgnðx_ r Þ
sk
where BT MB is the mass matrix, BT Q is the applied force   ð14Þ
0 1 v
vector and BT MH is a Coriolis and centrifugal force. a = tan
sa
Suspension force model where x_ r , u, v, sk and sa are the tire velocity, longitudi-
A suspension system is installed between the chassis nal deflection, lateral deflection and tire relaxation
and wheel. Using the vectors that are associated with lengths in the longitudinal and lateral directions, respec-
the body and wheels, the spring force and the damping tively. Using these practical slip quantities, the forces
force are defined using a spline function of the wheel and moments can be calculated by fitting experimental
travel (dw ) and vertical velocity (d_ w ). data using the following equation

F = DMF sinðCMF arctanðBMF x  EMF ðBMF x  arctanðBMF xÞÞÞÞ + SMF

ð15Þ
M = DMF sinðCMF arctanðBMF x  EMF ðBMF x  arctanðBMF xÞÞÞÞ + SMF

where F and M represent a tire force and moment,

Tire force models
The quality of the vehicle dynamics model depends
heavily on the tire model. The tire model used in this
article is MF-Tire model, which is a semi-empirical
mathematical model.10 This model is a well-known tire
respectively. The variable x represents the input to
which the tire slip ratio and angle respond. The coeffi-
cients BMF , CMF , DMF and EMF are factors that define
the curve’s shape. BMF is a stiffness factor, CMF is a
shape factor, DMF is the peak value factor and EMF is a
curvature factor.11
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

calculated. Finally, the equations of motion are gener-

ated and solved using integration method.

Steering model
Steering model definition
A steering model is the additional dynamic model for
the vehicle and the front tires which accounts for the
delays in the steering system.12,13 The steering actuation
system consists of the actuator, shaft angle sensor and
rotary spool valve (an integral part of the hydraulic
power assist unit). Together with the rack and pinion,
steering linkages and front wheels, the combined sys-
tem can be approximated by a model with 4 DOF as
shown in Figure 7. The actuator rotor inertia, upper
shaft inertia, the pinion inertia, rack mass and steering
linkage inertias are lumped into a single inertia. The
wheel inertias are combined into a separate inertia.
The equations of motion for this steering model are
as follows
 
Isw €dsw + Csw d_ sw + Ksys dsw  dps + Tstr = 0 ð16Þ
 
Isys €dps + Csys d_ ps + Ksys dps  dsw
 
Figure 6. The flowchart for vehicle simulation. dps
+ KL 2  dwl  dwr =Gs = Tb  Tfric, ps
Gs
ð17Þ
 
Environment for simulation dps
Iw €dwr + Cw d_ wr + KL dwr  =  Mzfr ð18Þ
The simulation algorithm was divided into four parts Gs
as shown in Figure 6. It begins using the initial condi-  
dps
tion such as vehicle properties, steering input, road pro- Iw €dwl + Cw d_ wl + KL dwl  =  Mzfl ð19Þ
Gs
file and so on. Next, the model carries out the K&C
analysis applying with the vehicle characteristics from where dsw , dps , dwr and dwl are the steering wheel angle,
K&C with respect to vehicle handling condition. And the column angle of steering system and wheel rotation
then, forces and torques acting on the body are angle of right and left side, respectively. Tstr , Tb and

Figure 7. Steering model.

Na et al.
Figure 8. The process for identification of steering system.
Tfric, ps are the torque applied on the steering wheel,
motor and friction torque on pinion, respectively.
Isw , Isys and Iw are the moment of inertia of the steering
wheel, lumped system and wheel, respectively. Ksys and
KL are the stiffness of torsion bar and wheel linkage,
respectively. Csw , Csys and Cw are the viscous damping
of steering wheel, column and linkage, respectively. Gs
is the steering gear ratio.
For the power steering system, the assist torque is
defined as a function of torsion bar torque (T) and the
vehicle speed by the following equation
f ðT , x_ b Þ = Amotor  tanhðaðx_ b Þ  coshðbðx_ b Þ  T Þ  tanhðcðx_ b Þ  T ÞÞ
where Amotor is the maximum torque of motor.
Variables a, b and c are the curve shape factor as a
function of vehicle velocity. The friction torque is
described by Dahl’s model14
  2
T_ fric = d_ ps g fric Tfric  ffric sign d_ ps
where g fric and ffric are the stiffness coefficient and
Coulomb friction force, respectively.
Identification of steering model
Due to the lumped steering system model, the identifi-
cation of parameters was conducted to achieve the best
correlation result for steering stiffness. Figure 8 shows
the process of identification. From the on-centre han-
dling test, the objective value is calculated.
The objective function was to minimize the differ-
ence of steering stiffness value found between computa-
tion and the measurements. The steering stiffness is the
slope which is taken using steering torque at minimum
and maximum steering angle
measure
reflecting rolling and steering characteristics about
minf =
Kstr sim
 Kstr
Tstr ðmaxðdstr ÞÞ  Tstr ðminðdstr ÞÞ
Kstr =
maxðdstr Þ  minðdstr Þ
9
Figure 9. Identification of steering stiffness.
where Kstr is the steering stiffness. Superscript ‘measure’
refers to obtaining data from a measurement, and ‘sim’
refers to the steering stiffness computed from the steer-
ing system model within the EVM simulation. To deter-
mine parameters Ksys , KL , Csw , Csys , Cw and g fric , ffric of
the lumped steering model, an evolutionary algorithm
(EA) in PIAnO15 was employed. An EA can be effective
for solving difficult optimization problems, such as this
one involving nonlinear global optimization. The target
value was set from experimental data. The simulation
was run with values for the coefficients. The difference
ð20Þ between simulation and experimental data was com-
pared. The algorithm was repeated until the solutions
were within the accepted tolerance. After a successful
optimization, values for the steering system parameters
were obtained. The results are compared with the on-
centre-handling test data in Figure 9. The steering stiff-
ness behaviour is in good agreement between model
ð21Þ and experiment.
Full car test
The vehicle’s response to sudden step change steering
input provides a reliable means to analyse the speed of
response, vehicle stability under the existing conditions
as well as the precision of the steering system.16 In
order to validate the vehicle simulation model, the step
change steering test was performed with steering and
gyro sensors installed on the chassis as shown in Figure
10(a). Beginning with straight driving at a constant
speed of 60 km/h, the steering wheel is moved as fast as
possible to the position that will result in a lateral accel-
eration of 4 m/s2. The steering inputs were an ampli-
tude of 55° and duration time of 0.2 s.
Figures 11–13 compare the test results and EVM for
chassis lateral acceleration and yaw velocity. The EVM
ð22Þ
with all K&C characteristics has notably better agree-
ment with the experimental data. And we compare with
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 1. Comparison of error between FVM and EVM.

Result with FVM (Yuen et al.’s paper8) Result with EVM (this article)

Steady-state lateral acc. (%) 4.76 2.39

Overshoot of lateral acc. (%) 9.21 2.95
Steady-state yaw rate (%) 4.40 3.32
Overshoot of yaw rate (%) 20.14 2.22
Steady-state roll angle (%) 3.54 3.02
Overshoot of roll angle (%) 2.91 2.19

FVM: full vehicle model; EVM: experimental vehicle model; acc.: acceleration.

Figure 11. Comparison of steering angle.

Figure 10. Environment of test and the position of sensors: (a)

position of sensors and (b) step change steering test.

bicycle model and 14 DOF model which are not con-

sidering the K&C characteristics of vehicle.
The bicycle model is obviously different from experi-
mental data because it does not include suspension roll
effect. The 14-DOF model occurs at the overshoot, but
at different responses. Most of all, Figures 11–13 show
that two models need the K&C characteristics to reduce
the difference. The movement of the wheel travel and Figure 12. Comparison of body lateral acceleration.
steering angle affects the lateral and yaw moments act-
ing on the sprung mass. This movement also affects the FVM, the result showed more accurate than the FVM.
load transfer. In extreme manoeuvres, these phenomena As shown in Table 1, the error on step steer test was
can significantly affect the vehicle handling response. A reduced with the EVM, in which yaw rate overshoot
vehicle model that includes all K&C characteristics will was much decreased in EVM. The FVM just employed
be needed to model these effects. an opposite test result and the toe angle with respect to
To compare the accuracy of this article, EVM in this body roll motion. In the EVM, K&C information such
article was compared to FVM in Yuen et al.8 Since as caster, camber, toe, wheel tread and wheelbase mea-
EVM in this article was a more precise model than the sured from SPMD seemed to enhance the accuracy.
Na et al.
Figure 13. Comparison of body yaw rate.
Conclusion
The main objective of this study was to derive a
dynamic vehicle model which incorporates K&C test
results. The steering model has been modelled with a 4-
DOF lumped model and identified system parameters
from the experiment data using PIAnO. For the verifi-
cation of the model, the simulation result was validated
by comparing it with a full vehicle test:
1. The research was able to incorporate experimen-
tal K&C data from SPMD. Tire and steering
system performance was also incorporated using
experimental data.
2. The lumped steering model is recommended.
Using experimental data, the system physical
parameters were identified.
3. Comparing the step change steering simulation
and experiment, the model with all K&C data
was validated. It also showed the quality
improvement of handling performance.
It is expected that these results can be applied to
additional vehicle models and contribute to additional
improvements in automotive handling qualities.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article: This work was supported by the Kumho Tire
11
Company and the Agency for Defense Development (ADD)
in Korea.
References
1. Cai Z, Chan S, Tang X, et al. The process of vehicle
dynamics development. In: SAE-China and FISITA
(eds) Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 world automotive
congress. Berlin: Springer, 2012, pp.13–21.
2. MSC Software. ADAMS 2005 user’s manual. MSC Soft-
ware, 2005, http://www.mscsoftware.com/
3. Antoun RJ, Hackert PB, O’s Leary MC, et al. Vehicle
dynamic handling computer simulation – model develop-
ment, correlation, and application using ADAMS. SAE
paper 860574, 1986.
4. Setiawan JD, Safarudin M and Singh A. Modeling,
simulation and validation of 14 DOF full vehicle model.
In: International conference on instrumentation, communi-
cation, information technology, and biomedical engineer-
ing, Bandung, Indonesia, 23–25 November 2009, pp.1–6.
New York: IEEE.
5. Kadir Z, Hudha K, Ahmad F, et al. Verification of
14DOF full vehicle model based on steering wheel input.
Appl Mech Mater 2012; 165: 109–113.
6. Jung HK. Vehicle dynamic analysis and chassis design
using functional suspension model. PhD Thesis, Kookmin
University, Seoul, South Korea, 2004.
7. Yoo WS, Na SD and Kim KS. Real-time vehicle
dynamic analysis with experimental vehicle model. Trans
Korean Soc Mech Eng A 2012; 36: 1003–1008.
8. Yuen TJ, Foong SM and Ramli R. Optimized suspen-
sion kinematic profiles for handling performance using
10-degree-of-freedom vehicle. Proc IMechE, Part K: J
Multi-Body Dynamics 2014; 288: 82–99.
9. Kim SS. A state space formulation for multibody dynamics
systems subject to control. PhD Thesis, University of
Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 1985.
10. Bakker E, Pacejka HB and Lidner L. A new tire model
with an application in vehicle dynamics studies (SAE
paper 890087). In: SAE world congress, Detroit, MI, 1
April 1989.
11. Pacejka HB. Tire and vehicle dynamics. Warrendale, PA:
SAE, 2002, pp.172–215.
12. Mohamed ES and Albatlan SA. Modeling and experi-
mental design approach for integration of conventional
power steering and a steer-by-wire system based on
active steering angle control. Am J Vehicle Des 2014; 2:
32–42.
13. Qun Z. The design of power assisted characteristic curve
for electric power steering system. J Converg Inform Tech-
nol 2012; 7: 260–266.
14. Haessig DA Jr and Friedland B. On the modeling and
simulation of friction. J Dyn Syst: T ASME 1991; 113:
354–362.
15. PIAnO user’s manual, version 3.6. PIDOTECH, Inc.,
2014, http://www.pidotech.com
16. ISO 7401:2011. Road vehicles – passenger cars: lateral
transient response test methods – open-loop test methods.
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Appendix 1 Tb torque applied on the motor

Tfric, ps friction torque on pinion
Notation Tstr torque applied on the steering
a, b, c curve shape factor of motor wheel
torque u tire longitudinal deflection
Amotor maximum torque of motor v tire lateral deflection
B velocity transformation matrix x_ r tire velocity
BMF , CMF , DMF , magic formula parameters for y_ b velocity of vehicle body
EMF , SMF force and moment y_ w velocity of wheel
Csw , Csys , Cw viscous damping of steering y_ w=b relative velocity of wheel with
wheel, column and linkage respect to body
ffric Coulomb friction force €yw=b relative acceleration of wheel with
Gs steering gear ratio respect to body
Isw , Isys , Iw moment of inertia of the steering g fric stiffness coefficient of friction
lumped system torque
Kstr stiffness of steering system dps column angle of steering system
Ksys , KL stiffness of torsion bar and wheel dsw steering wheel angle
linkage dwr , dwl right and left side of wheel travel
m0 , m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 polynomial coefficient of sk tire longitudinal relaxation length
opposite test sa tire lateral relaxation length
p0 , p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 polynomial coefficient of parallel
test
s0 , s1 , s2 , s 3 , s4 , polynomial coefficient of steering
n0 , n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 test