Functional Derivation of Vehicle Parameters for Dynamic Studies NRCC, September 1974 EDC Library Ref. No. 1094DISCLAIMER ‘These materials are available in the public domain and are not copyrighted Engineering Dynamics Corporation (EDC) copies and distributes these materials to provide a source of information to the accident investigation community. EDC makes no claims as to their accuracy and assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof,ete National Research — Conseil national a Council Canada de recherches Canada NATIONAL AERONAUTICAL ETABLISSEMENT AERONAUTIQUE ESTABLISHMENT NATIONAL Reet erate REPORT fag, DIRSSTATHT RAPPORT fiat, gue September 1974 pee eee LABORATORY / LABORATOIRE. See vaces__29_ ‘Conia Lat : Boden 2023-4 re, Internal Rereneee | FUNCTIONAL DERIVATION OF VEHICLE | PARAMETERS FOR DYNAMIC STUDIES Arpaoven, F, R. Thurston Aeenouve, — Fommucame ASUMMARY ‘The primary purpose ofthis study wasto provide vehicle data sets characterizing the subcompact, compact, intermediate and standard size categories of passenger cars. ‘These data sets provide for parametric studies of the vehicle-terrain-cable barrier syste using the NAE-Cornell analysis. A secondary objective was to derive parametric functional relationships which could be used to calculate typical values of the required parameters. ‘The objectives were met bya search dfthe published literature for vehicle para- meter data, Thesedata were then analyzed to establish parametric correlation with wheel- ‘base length or total vehicle weight, This was done for several of the primary vehicle para~ meters required for parametric studies. Finally the results were used to generate data sets for the required vehicle categories. RESUME. Le but prineipal de cette étude a été de produire des ensembies de données permettant la caractérisation de diverses tailles de voitures de série (souscompacte, compacte, intermédiaire et courante). Ces données permetiont d'accomplir, au moyen de Ja méthode d'analyse NAE-Cornell, des études parambtriques du systtme véhicule-terrain- garde fou A cables. L'un des objectifs secondaires a été de mettre au point des équations paramttriques de fagon & calculer des valeurs types des paramtres nécessaires. Une recherche bibliographique concernant les données paramttriques de véhicules automobiles, a permis d'atteindre ces objectifs. Les données ont été analysées de fagon A établir des corrélations entre les parametres et ia distance entre les deux essicux ou encore le poids total du véhicule. Plusicurs. des paramétres primaires nécessaires aux études param@triquos ont ainsi été analysés, Les résultats obtenus ont, en dernier lieu, permis de générer des ensembles de données relatifs aux catégories de véhicule étudiées, Gai)TABLE OF CONTENTS aE SUMMARY ... SHO se a q TABLES os. .eceeeeseee ILLUSTRATIONS .s.eeeeeeeseeeeeee 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............. 2.0 BACKGROUND ........ 3.0 VEHICLE POPULATION STATISTICS . 4.0 | FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE PARAMETERS 4.1 Tire Characteristics -.....60.s.s0sseseeeseeeeeces es : 4.2 Curb Weight and Dimensions 4.8 Weight Distribution : 4.4 Centre of Gravity Location . 4.5 Moments of Inertia ...... cote cS 4.8.1 Dynamic Index ...ceeeeeeeee cess eee te 4.6 Product of Inertia ....... 4.7 Suspension Characteristics 4.7.1 Wheel Rates . 4.7.2 Suspension Stops 4.7.3 Damping ee 4.7.4 Roll Stiffness a os S 4.7.5 Rear Roll Centre Height q 4.7.6 Rear Roll-Steer Coefficient a 4.1.7 Wheel Vertical Travel. 4.7.8 Wheel Camber ....... 4.8 Steering and Drive Line System .......... 4.9 Data Sheets ........., 5.0 APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS 6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS .........4. 7.0 REFERENCES .............05 Gv)TABLES Page New Motor Vehicle Registrations by Make and Province - 1969 .... 23 New Motor Vehicle Registrations by Make and Province - 1973 2 Tire Data eet eten ess tute 25 Specifications for Passenger Vehicles - 1969 ....-.. +0405 26 Specifications for Passenger Vehicles ~ 1974 pees 27 Front and Rear Overhang for Vehicle ~ Cable Contact ......+++ 29 Vehicle Weight Distribution ...eseeee. cesses BO # Centre of Gravity Height z +. 3h Vehicle Moment of Inertia Parameters... + 32 Vehicle Sprung Mass Roll-Yaw Product of Inertia... 33 1 Suspension Characteristics eee 34 Suspension Roll Stiffness 35 : Calculated Roll Stiffness fencer 36 ' Steering and Drive Line System... eee 3 : Representative Data for Chrysler Production Models - 38 Representative Data for General Motors Production Models 39 : Representative Data for Ford Production Models ...+.+++ 40 | ‘Typical Values for the Passenger Class of Vehicles ss 41 i Vehicle Parameters for Vehicle~Terrain-Cable Barrier Parametric Studies 42 wFigure 10 u 12 13 14 1s 16 7 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Analytical Representation of the Vehicle sees 48 Flow Chart of Vehicle Parameters Required for Vehicle Dynamic Studies .. ste eecseeseteteeesecterereees 4d New Passenger Car Registrations ...., aie 45 Typical Comparison of Experimental and Caloulated Tire Characteristics .......... eoeesueial 46 Total Weight as a Function of Wheelbase Length ---.......05 a7 ‘Total Weight Distribution as a Function of Wheelbase Length 48 Overall Length as a Function of Wheelbase Length ..... 49 Overall Width and Height as a Function of Wheelbase Length ..... 50 Front and Rear Track as a Function of Wheelbase Length 61 Front and Rear Overhang as a Function of Wheelbase Length .... 52 Unsprung Weight as a Function of Total Weight teers 58 ‘Total Vehicle C.G. Height as a Function of Total Weight ........ 54 Total Yaw and Pitch Radif of Gyration as a Function of Total Weight ....... eee, Renee cere serait Sprung Mass Yaw and Roll Radii of Gyration as 2 Function of Total Weight eee Sitio 7 Sprung Mass Yaw = Roll Product of Inertia of Total Weight fie aera st Sprung Mass Bounce Natural Frequency and Wheel Rate Distribution as a Function of Total Weight .....eeeeeeeeeee 8B Typical Camber ~ Wheel Vortieal Travel Characteristios for Transverse Link Idependent Suspension ..ee. 59 (vi)FUNCTIONAL DERIVATION OF VEHICLE PARAMETERS FOR DYNAMIC STUDIES by G.L. Basso 1.0 INTRODUCTION A search for vehicle parameters required for parametric studies of vehicle re~ direction by highway cable barriers has been carried out. The primary objective was to derive data sets for several vehicle categories, This report presents the results of this investigation. ‘The NAE analysis of the cable barrier model (Ref. 1) has been programmed for digital computation, and is used in conjunction with the Cornell simulation of vehicle dynamics in single vehicle accidents (Ref. 2). 2.0 BACKGROUND ‘The Cornell analytical description of the vehicle (valid for a rear drive, front independent suspension and a solid rear axle as shown in Fig. 1) requires numerical values for thirty-two individual parameters. Also required are tabular data for front wheel camber as a fimction of suspension deflection, driver control tables in the form of wheel torques as a function of time and tire data to cover the complete range of loading- conditions. A flow chart listing these parameters is shown in Figure 2. Besides the parameters required in the basic Cornell model as used in the NAE studies, Figure 2 lists additional parameters resulting from extensions of the analysis (Ref. ). In addition to the vehicle description, the parametric studies also require para~ meters identifying roadside terrain features and, of course, the cable barrier configura~ tions, To include this total amount of detail in studies of the type envisaged would render the task most difficult, Accordingly the objeetives of the vehicle parameter search were twofold. First to provide a parametric description of that class of vehicles constituting the major percentage of the total population ~ considered to be the family sedan type of automobile subdivided into subcompact, compact, intermediate and standard size catego- ries. And secondly, to investigate the possibility of reducing the total number of individual parameters required to define the vehicle model by functional relationships with as fewi \ i 5 j i i -2- independent variables as possible: e.g., that all vehicle parameters may be functionally related to wheelbase length. This latter step is particularly important in relation to the derivation of simplified design criteria used to assess total vehicle-terrain-barrier system response, ‘The objectives noted above were met, in effect, by searching the published liter ature for numerical data typifying the various vehicle parameters apropos to the Cornell simulation. These data were analyzed to uncover the existence of functional relationships that would permit calculation of parameters for all categories of vehicles within acceptable tolerances. A + 10% variation was considered acceptable, based on typical sensitivity response of the vehicle-terrain-barrier system to changes in major system parameters. ‘The absence of a significant amount of data for any particular category of vehicle negated the use of statistical analysis other than the application of best curve fitting by least Squares fit. No attempt was made to model any particular ride or handling aspect of the Passenger car for purposes of generating data, The approach was to accept typical final production values which, in the automotive industry, are often arrived at by an essentially “track test’ approach. In total the literature search uncovered the existence of an appreciable amount of data, much of it, however, somewhat fragmentary. To assemble 2 complete data set for a particular category of vehicle required a composite of several makes and models involving several production years. Thus a particular parameter could possibly reflect Production trends if derived from vehicles spanning several production years. For example, for a given overall length and weight present day passenger cars have a smaller pitch moment of inertia than, say, the early 1950 era due to current low profile styles (ef. 4). The most complete source of data (Ref. 5) was directed towards a compilation of typical vehicle parameters for dynamic studies applicable to conventional domestic (North American) passenger cars. Here again, however, for the most part a range of values were quoted typical of an upper and lower bound. ‘The point to be made is that @ valid system response is dependent on a judicious choice of a data set representative of a particular class or category of vehicles. Accordingly, where possible, criteria used in ride and stability response were employed to validate results of the study. Also attempts wore made to obtain as complete a data set as possible for the category of vehicles con- sidered herein by direct solicitation to the automotive manufacturers‘The classification of private passenger cars into the subcompact, compact; intermediate and standard size categories as used herein fs in conformity with that gen- erally used by the automotive industry as reported in, e.g., the Automotive News 3.0 VEHICLE POPULATION STATISTICS As stated previously, the objective of this study was to provide vehicle data characterizing the several categories of vehicles noted above for parametric studies of vehicle redirection by highway cable barriers. ‘The assumption is that these categories comprise the major portion of the total vehicle population as attested by motor vehicle registration statistics. Such statistics have additional relevancy to barrier design. For example one of the most significant trends noted over the past several years has been the increasing presence of the smaller (overall dimensions and curb weight) size car ~ subcompact, compact and, to some extent, the intermediate categories. This is illustrated in the bar graph of Figure 3 which shows Canadian registration statistics for the production years 1969 and 1973, arranged according to the vehicle categories used in this study. This shift is dramatized further if the results of Figure 8 are viewed in relation to the more traditional full-size or standard category. There is reason to believe that this trend will continue, Related to highway barriers the message is that for existing installations the id configurations are likely to be, in a structural sense, more punishing. By contrast flexible barriers (e.g. the cable type) are more accommodating. Also vehicle statistical specifications for future barrier design may require a change. Figure 3 was constructed using the data tabulated in Tables 1 and 2 which, in turn, were compiled from registration statistics arranged, in so far as possible, according to the designated categories. Wheelbase length and curb or unladen weight were derived from manufacturers’ specifications. 4.0 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE PARAMETERS ‘The analysis of vehicle parameters as described below was conducted for the specific requirements of the vehicle-terrain-cable barrier system as simulated by the NAE - Cornell analysis. Nevertheless it is anticipated that the results will find general applica~ bility.siaie ‘The class of vehicle considered in the study was confined to the private passenger car as typified by the two-door or four-door family sedan in its several weight categories, Vehicles classified as specialty cars or station wagons were not considered in so far as specified in the literature 4.1 Tire Characteristics As shown in the flow chart of Figure 2 tire parameters are considered as a sep- arate measurable entity, The analytical approach adopted for tire-terrain interaction in the Cornell analysis is fitted empirical relationships to approximate the experimentally derived data. Simply stated this is achieved by adopting, as a function of tire loading, a parabolic distribution for both cornering stiffness for small slip angles and camber Stiffness for small camber angles. Tire side-forces are calculated by first approximating camber effects by an equivalent slip angle, and making use of an analytical approach where- in 2 non-dimensional slip angie variable and a friction circle concept are employed. Aligning torques on the front wheels are simulated by means of a constant pneumatic trail dimension when the optional steer-mode degree of freedom is activated. In this way a complete range of tire loading is accommodated ~ from a loss of ground contact to cond= itions of extreme overload. Details of the tire-terrain interaction analysis are given in the Cornell reports (Ref. 2). An example of the approximation achieved is shown in Figure 4 as reproduced from Reference 6. The A constants are those used in the parabolic fit, Table 3 contains a list of data for several tires formulated in accordance with the Cornell analysis, and also reproduced from Reference 6. Updated versions of the Cornell simulation (Ref. 7) have included a more com- prehensive treatment of the tire-terrain interaction analysis, incorporating such details as variation of circumferential friction coefficient with wheel slip speed and vehicle speed, asymmetric tire loading such as that which might occur with one wheel resting on an ice patch, ete. In addition the friction circle concept has been replaced by a more realistic friction ellipse to account for the characteristic variation of tire side-force coefficient with wheel slip speed. 4.2 Curb Weight and Dimensions Vehicle production characteristics such as curb or unladen weight, total weight distribution, overall body dimensions," wheel track and wheelbase length and tire sizes arereadily available from publications such as Automotive News and Consumer Reports. As an example figures for the production years 1969 and 1974 are shown in Tables 4 and 5 respectively, arranged according to vehicle categories. ‘The subdivision of the standard size category is in accordance with results reported in Consumer Reports. For each category average values have been calculated ‘The average values in Tables 4 and 5 have been found to correlate quite well with wheelbase length. For curb or unladen weight a log - log plot using a least squares fit strongly suggests a cubic law ~ the exponent being 2.94 and 2.77 for the 1969 and 1974 production years respectively. Selecting the cubic relationship and using a least squares fit yield the results shown in Figure 5. In similar way percent front to rear total weight distribution, overall length, width and height, and front and rear wheel track have been correlated with wheelbase length, Figures 6, 7, § and 9 respectively. Linear relation~ ships in theform of y = a+bx have been found adequate. With the exception of front to rear weight distribution the validity of an equation with zero intercept has been verified also. The former is used to calculate typical vehicle values. The latter is used in para- metric studies to investigate the possibility of expressing the vehicle contribution to total system response in a simplified form, e.g. using dimensional analysis. Upper limits are chown for overall width and wheel track due to constraint: imposed by road size. By superimposing on Figures 5 to 9 all values for each of the corresponding parameters listed in Tables 4 and 5 one finds that, for the most part, individual values fall within a + 10% band about the least squares fit. Also noted ‘is that North American vehicles tend to have a width to height aspect ratio of approximately 2. Imports tend to be somewhat less. Additional vehicle dimensions are required in barrier analysis to locate the vehicle contact points. For the cable barrier these have been defined as the front and rear corners (Ref, 1). To provide data for the particular needs of the parametric studies, representative values of front and rear overhang, measured relative to the front and rear axle centrelines respectively, have been made on several representative vehicles as listed in Table 6. These have been expressed as percentages of wheclbase length, and again average values calculated for each vehicle category. The average values are shown plotted in Figure 10 and linear functions derived as described above. ; The footnote at the bottom of Table 6 is relevant to the cable barrier studies and specifies the elevation abovecarey itd ib i 4 4 was g 8 sam Saat -6- ground at mid - cable height. The sum of front and rear overhang plus wheelbase length will be generally less than the overall vehicle length. 4.3 Weight Distribution For the analysis the vehicle is idealized as a composite of rigid body masses, namely that corresponding tothe sprung weight and the front and rear unsprung weights. ‘The front unsprung weight is considered as two separate masses concentrated at the wheel centres. Weight distribution data as extracted from several sources are shown tabulated in Table 7, Total vehicle weight distribution has been considered, Total unsprung weight is shown tabulated as a percentage of total vehicle weight and front unsprung, as a per~ centage of total unsprung. Total unsprung weight is shown plotted as a function of total vehicle weight with linear correlation in Figure 11, The linear expressions were derived using least squares fit. Reference 9 quotes a typical relationship for the sprung weight (W,) related to the total vehicle weight (W,) as +0.008' vy ~{o.ese This result is based on data derived from a total of eighteen vehicles. From Figure 11 the corresponding relationship is found to be W, © (1- 0.144 )W, = 0.856 W, based on data derived from thirty-six vehicles. Reference 9 also quotes a typical rela~ tionship for the front unsprung weight (W,,,) related to the total unsprung weight (Wy,) as £0.00 0.003) "ur based on data derived from sixteen vehicles. From Table 7 the corresponding average Wy, ~ (0.309 value is found to be Wy, 0.385 Wy, using data derived from a total of twenty-four vehicles. 4.4 Centre of Gravity Location The analysis assumes a vertical plane of symmetry containing the vehicle long- itudinal centreline. For the total vehicle the longitudinal location of the centre of gravity, relative to the front and rear axle centrelines, is given by the front to rear weight dis~tribution and the wheelbase length. The vertical location, on the other hand, is not a readily defined. Reference § quotes a range of values of approximately 19 to 24 inches above ground as bei ig Tepresentative of the North American passenger car. ‘There is some evidence to indicate that the vertical centre of gravity location is related to the overall height. Table 8 lists several values for a number of vehicles as derived from several sources, Included is the overall height and the ratio of centre of Eravity height to overall height. This ratio appears to be approximately constant with a value of about 40%. Figure 12 shows the correlation of this ratio with vehicle weight using the data obtained from References 8 and 12 (the Mustang and the station wagon are not included), ‘The additional data listed in the table reflect loading conditions other than curb or unladen weight. ‘The centre of gravity for the sprung mass can be derived using the data obtained for the total vehicle and the vehicle weightdistribution. The mass centres for theunsprung weights are assumed to be on the axle centrelines. Their vertical location above ground can be estimated from the tire size, the weight at each wheel and a representative value for the tire stiffness (typically 1600 Ib/in) 4.5 Moments of Inertia Measured moments of inertia, made with respect to a centroidal system of axes as required in the analysis, are shown plotted as a function of total vehicle weight in Reference 5 for total vehicle yaw and pitch, and sprung mass yaw and roll. Linear approximations are derived for each case with estimates of upper and lower bounds. ‘Values given include both station wagons and the relatively low, long hood, short rear deck vehicles. Also the pitch values reflect various loading conditions. Sprung mass pitch moments of inertia are not given. Relative to the vehicle moments of inertia, the implication of the cubiclaw relating total vehicle weight and wheelbase length is that the inertia is related to the total weight according to a 1-2/3 power law. To test this hypothesis the data given in Reference 5 were used to obtain the square of the radius of gyration for each case as a function of total vehicle weight (Table 9). The results are shown in Figures 18 and 14 plotted on a Jog ~ log scale for total vehicle yaw and pitch, and sprung mass roll and yaw, moments of inertia respectively, Least squares fit has been used in each case. Also shown is the fit-8- obtained using 2 2/3 power law. These results show that for each case the corresponding ™moment of inertia is approximately proportional to (W,}"” ‘The values required in the analysis are the sprung mass inertia parameters relative to a centroidal system of axes located at the sprung mass centre of gravity, For the pitch inertia values can be estimated using the value for the total vehicle and the known weight distribution. The front unsprung weights are considered as point masses, Pitch moment of inertia for the rear axle, about the axle centreline, is sensibly zero. There- fore the rear unsprung mass can also be treated as a point mass for purposes of calculating sprung mass pitch inertia The rear unsprung mass roll moment of inertia, i.e. about an axis parallel to the sprung mass reference x - exis and through the axle centre of gravity (Fig. 1), is the additional mass parameter required to define the vehicle. For purposes of the parametric studies this value has been calculated for each vehicle category. To do this the value measured for the test vehicle used in the NRC cable barrier studies (Ref. 1) was taken as & base value. Values for each category were calculated by scaling according to the weight of the rear unsprung mass and the square of the rear wheel track. ‘The value used in Reference 1 (344 lb ~ sec*~ in, 59.28 inch wheel track and 303 1b weight) was measured using an air bearing system (Ref. 13), A value of 600 Ib ~ sec®- in (64 inch track and 345 Ib weight) was reported in Reference 3 and 435. 6 Tb ~ sec? in (60,5 inch track and 865 lb weight) in Reference 2. 4.5.1 Dynamic Index Vehicle inertia parameters are found in the equations of motion governing ride, handling and directional response, In handling analyses a ter called the ‘dynamic index! is frequently encountered (Ref. 14). This term is defined by the ratio of the square of the yaw radius of gyration to the product of the foreward and rearward location of the centre of gravity of the total vehicle, i.e. (k?) dynamic index tow a,b, This term relofes the mass distribution to the weight distribution, A typical value is unity This dynamic index can be calculated using the results presented herein as follows. From Figure 13 the 2/3 power law for the square of the total yaw radius of gyration isgiven by (8), 940.108 Ww. ‘The cubic law from Figure 5 for 1969 production models is se W, © (2.254) 10° 62 whence asf : (8), © (0. 108) [e 254)10 | (asaya? ‘The value 144 converts square feet to square inches. From Figure 6 an average value between 90 and 130 inch wheelbase length gives, for 1969 production models, a front to rear weight distribution of 54.7/45.3. Thus ar ¥0.453 6, br XO. 547 L,, And hence 134) - 103 a,b, (0.453) (0.547) ‘as compared to the value of 1 previously mentioned. A similar term is defined for ride response but in this case in terms of the sprung mass pitch moment of inertia (Ref. 15), namely &D), dynamic index = — ayy ck Again from Figure 13 for the total vehicle in pitch « 0°), 0, 0788 W, Using the expressions for total weight and centre of gravity location as a function of wheel- ase length as given above for the yaw dynamic index yields cs Ak?) 0.794 i SRSA RN LALO Ao Mane RLnRRaLEN ARN eaLenecNY Ne atsctnsmtencneernt ~10- For the sprung mass the product of (ab) is essentially the same as that for the total vehicle. Also the sprung mass pitch moment of inertia is about 14% less than that for the total vehicle (based on Figs. 13 and 14 for yaw values and assuming the same percentage reduction). Hence for the sprung mass («) Verne 8 (ei 0.79) = 0. a (1-0. 14) (0.79) 68 Reference 9 quotes an average value of (5) oon £0.07 ap £08 Sg using sprung mass values derived from measurements made on four early 1950 productior models. In Reference 15 an average value of 0.8 is quoted for 1940 production models. In both of these cases measurements were made on vehicles which were known to have higher overall production heights, and hence, by comparison to present day passenger cars, for the same overall length and weight a larger pitch moment of inertia. 4.6 Product of Inertia ‘The assumption of a vertical plane of symmetry containing the vehicle longitudins centreline implies the existence of a single product of inertia, in this case corresponding to roll - yaw. Very few values have been found in the published literature - too few to establish any correlation for the vehicle categories considered herein, Reference 5 quote an approximate range of values of + 140 slug-ft? and states that there was no correlation with any measured vehicle properties that would allow this parameter to be estimated without actually measuring it. ‘The centroidal system of axes used in the analysis (Fig. 1) is not, by definition, a principal system. An angle of inclination relative to the x-axis would define, however, a principal system of axes, and the corresponding moments of inertia about this prin- cipal system of axes would be the princifyal moments of inertia. The assumption that there exists a characteristic value for this angle of inclination, for the category of vehicles considered herein, provides the means for estimating typical values for roll-yaw product of inertia. Thus, given the sprung mass roll (I,) and yaw (I,) moments of inertia, the ‘corresponding product of inertia (I, ,), all about the centroidal system of vehicle ref- erence axes, and the inclination ( ) of the principal system of axes relative to the x - axis, - ue then Ly = 2 0, -1,) tan ‘Table 10 contains the results of calculated I,, values for three assumed values of A using the measured values for sprung mass I, and 1, as reported in Reference 5. The results are shown plotted in Figure 15 correlated with total vehicle weight. Also shown in Figure 16 are the results obtained using the 2/3 power law for sprung mass roll and yaw values as shown in Figure 14, namely 2 ee (c),,, 0.0869 w7 whence w, 1, #0. 0809 Wy 5 For roll 2 1 0%), 0.0121 WH! whence 1, = 0.0121 wa B ‘Therefore 1, 80.0874 w2!) tan 2 g ‘The upper and lower bounds quoted in Reference 6 ( #140 slug ~ ft * ) suggest a possible value of A = 3° as being characteristic of the category of passenger cars considered in this study. 4.7 Suspension Characteristics Many of the vehicles found on the North American highways have one of the following suspension systems. For the front, an independent system with double trans- verse links using coil springs or torsion bars. For the rear, a solid axle with a multi- control arm system using coil springs, or the conventional Hotchkiss!system using semi- elliptic leaf springs. The study of suspension characteristics was confined, the to these systems in so far as specified as such by the data given in the published literature.-12- 4.7.1 Wheel Rates Wheel rates (suspension rates) for purposes of the Cornell analysis are defined as the suspension load-deflection rate for a single wheel in the quasi-linear range about the curb positio: effective at the wheel for the front and at the axle for the rear suspensi Wheel or suspension rates do not include the effect of tire rates. A term called ride rate reflects the effect of the tires (Ref. 16). These terms are used at times interchangeably with resultant confusion. Wheel rates for several vehicles are tabulated in Table 11. In some cases the references quoted values denoted by ride rates. These were assumed, and therefore entered, as wheel rates however. If such values were indeed ride rates an error of approximately 10% would ensue (assuming a tire stiffness of 1000 lb/in). Reference 5 specifies ranges of ride rate values, namely 80 to 160 Ib/in per wheel for the front and 80 to 260 Ib/in per wheel for the rear, at 30% to 60% front distribution. Several criteria used to select such values were noted in the literature, and these were invariably related to criteria used to assess vehicle ride quality. The final criteria chosen, as used in this study, was governed by consistency of results, Accordingly, sprung mass bounce natura frequency and percent front distribution were used to determine front and rear wheel ratc Linear correlation with total vehicle weight is shown in Figure 16 for the values tabu- lated in Table 11. Reference 5 states a range of bounce natural frequencies for light load conditions of 0.9 to 1.3 Hz, with smaller cars typically exhibiting the higher value. The results of Figure 16 give a value of 1.4 Hz at 2000 Ib and 0.97 Hz at 5000 Ib, 4.7.2 Suspension Stops Automotive suspension bumpers are used to prevent metal to metal contact with excessive wheel vertical travel, and are designed to minimize and control the effects of impact on the sprung mass (Ref. 18). In the Cornell analysis as used in the NAE studies (Ref. 2) these deflection-limiting stops are assumed to be symmetrically located with respect to the design position of the suspension. They are assumed further to possess constant load~deflection rates. Front and rear suspension stop rates are expressed as a multiple of the front and rear wheel rates, respectively, Some values are quoted in Table 16 and these have been taken as representative data for the various vehicle categories.~13 + ‘ 4.7.3. Damping ‘The Cornell analysis considers both coulomb and viscous damping, both effective at the wheel for the front and at the axle for the rear. Coulomb damping would be probably characteristic of the suspension system and possibly depend on vehicle size. Pew values were available with which to characterize this parameter. The values quoted in Reference 18 were measured using an air bearing system. ‘Those reported in Reference 3 are comparable. The data in Reference 2 include shock absorber 'blow-off" force. Viscous damping is provided by the shock absorbers. It would appear that shock absorber rates are selected primarily to provide ride quality. Damping rates are higher in the extension direction and usually higher'in the rear suspension. Reference 5 states that ride damping is difficult to specify parametrically because it is nonlinear and quite variable with different vehicles. A gross approximation of 20% critical bounce damping is suggested. For the Cornell analysis values of viscous damping are derived from force-velocity measurements made directly on the shock absorber (Ref. 15) and then factored to account for installation ratios (Refs, 2 and 3). For the cable barrier parametric studies viscous damping is not a sensitive parameter. Therefore values have been calculated as a per~ centage of critical damping, where the percentage values have been determined using the data presented in Table 14 as follows. Critical damping (C,) per wheel was calculated using the corresponding wheel rate (K) and the sprung weight (W,) at each wheel. The shock absorber rates quoted in the table were then expressed as a percentage of this value and the results averaged. Thus for the front ©, © 12.3% (C,), and the rear Ce © 20.8% (CL), Critical damping is calculated using cc. = 2fKW/e-u- 4.7.4 Roll Stiffness Roll stiffness comprises two parts, namely that corresponding to the wheel rates and an auxiliary quantity. ‘The auxiliary roll stiffness is that due to the linkage elements of the suspension system and, if employed, a roll or anti-sw: y bar. Thus for the front the total roll stiffness (R,), is defined by 2 2K, +R, 2 (,) ve and for the rear (R,), oe aK, +R, 2 ®), Jn those equations R, and R, are the front and rear auxiliary roll stifinesses, respectively, K, and K,, the front and rear wheel rates, respectively, T, the front wheel track and T, the effective spring spacing at the axle. In the Cornell analysis the auxiliary quantity is required as input data. Table 12 lists values of roll stiffness for several vehicles itemized as described above. This was done in so far as the data given in the references permitted. In all cases the suspension was one of the types specified previously. Values listed for the front roll stiffness would appear to indicate that in some instances the vehicle was fitted with a roll bar, ‘The auxiliary values given for the 1963 Pontiac were measured by the author (Ref. 13). In this case the suspension was equipped with coil springs, with the rear suspension being a three control arm system with a lateral track bar. ‘The values extracted from Reference 8 are listed in Table 12 but no calculations performed due to the absence of required data. With the exception of the 1969 Ford the rear suspension was of the Hotchkiss type. For the Ford a system with three control arms and a lateral track bar, using coil springs, was specified. In all cases the front suspension was equipped with a stabilizer. i Reference 5 quotes for front roll stiffness a range of values from 200 to 700 Ib ft/deg, for rear roll rates, 100 to 400 Ib - ft/deg, with 50% to 80% front distribution. An assessment of the data in Table 12 indicates the following possible parametric relation- ships; and these have been used for the cable barrier parametric studies. For the front suspension with no roll bar the auxiliary roll stiffness is taken as the average of Ref. 13and the 1974 Pinto (20 Ib ~ ft/deg), Thus for the front roll stiffness with no roll bar (RY = Dy 1K, +20 2 2 The increased roll stiffness due to the installation of a roll bar is dependent on material type and size. There is, however, some evidence (Ref. 19) to suggest that as a minimum a roll bar is sized to give a 100% increase in front roll stiffness. Therefore, on this assumption, for front roll stiffness with roll bar 2 R= +(Sex)+20 2 where the auxiliary value now becomes For rear roll stiffness two cases are distinguished, namely a Hotchkiss system with semi-elliptic leaf springs and a multi-control arm system with coil springs. This has been done to account for differences in auxiliary roll stiffness. Also, total roll stiffness depends on the effective rear spring spacing (T,) as measured at the axle; and this is considered to be different for each of the two cases. The data in Table 12, distinguish rear roll stiffness and rear spring spacing for each of these types with the following results. For the leaf spring system the average auxiliary value is 87.4 Ib - ft/deg. Rear spring spacing expressed as a percentage of rear wheel track gives an average value of 76.4% T, For the coil spring system the corresponding values are R, © 58 Ib - ft/dog TF oa 1, ‘Thus for the total rear roll stiffness : 4 @), +874 xf.Ee pots 8 RRM NA A aR EAMONN = 16 - T, ¥ 0.764 T, for the semi-elliptic leaf spring system. And for the coil spring type , ®), = 1s K, +58 2 T, ¥ 0.640 7, Using these results front and rear total and auxiliary roll stiffnesses have been calculated for cach vehicle listed in Table 12. The results are shown tabulated in Table 12a. A teasonable degree of approximation is evident. 4.7.5 Rear Roll Centre Height ‘The concept of @ roll axis has been abandoned in the Cornell analysis. For tho front unsprung masses the degrees of freedomare the vertical motion of the wheel centres and the optional steer mode. For the rear unsprung mass two degrees of freedom are assumed, namely vertical motion and roll, the latter about a roll centre (i.e. the virtual centre about which axle motions take place in roll). The roll centre is assumed toremain a fixed distance from the rear unsprung mass centre of gravity (positive for roll centre above the ©.G.), ‘The absence of sufficient data precludes the possibility of establishing any de- Gnitive parametric relationship for this parameter. Data tabulated in Tables 14, 15 and 16 show several values for rear roll centre heights measured relative to ground. Values range from 4.3 inches above the wheel centre height to 3. 9inches below, with most values negative, i.e, below the wheel centre, Reference 5 quotes a range of values from § to 20 inches as measured above ground, A value of - 2 inches was used in Reference 2 and -0.6 for the NRC test vehicle (Ref. 13). In theabsence of more definitive data a value of 0 has been assumed for the parametric studies. Sensitivity studies have shown this not to be a sensitive parameter. It has also bech assumed that the rear unsprung mass con- tre of gravity coincides with the geometric centre. 4.7.6 Rear Roll-Steer Coefficient The lack of data precludes the possibility of establishingvany parametric relation ship for rear roll-steer (positive for roll understeer). In addition to the values listed in Tables 14, 15 and 16, Refercnce § quotes a range of values from 10% oversteer to 25% understeer. Values of 5.9%, 5.62% and 8.7% were used in References 2, 3 and 13-i- respectively. A value of 3% has been used for the cable barrier studies, again a sec ondary parameter in terms of response sensitivity. 4.7.7 Wheel Vertical Travel Maximum suspension deflections, from the positions of static equilibrium rel- ative to the vehicle, in both jounce (compression) and rebound (extension) are required for both front and rear unsprung masses. The version of the Cornell analysis used in the barrier studies assumes symmetry of travel in both directions. This restriction has been removed in a more recent version (Ref. 7). Values are normally determined during measurements of suspension load-deflection characteristics. Some representative mag- nitudes are listed in Tables 14 and 16. The description full wheel travel in Table 14 has been assumed to mean travel to contact of the suspension bumpers. In Reference 16, Section 6 (suspension geometry) the term metal-to-metal position (compression and re~ bound) is used to define the point of maximum travel limited by interference of substan- tially rigid members. The description given in Table 16 is assumed to convey this meaning. Values for both rebound and jounce are probably dependent on suspension type and vehicle category. In the absence of more definitive data the values listed in Table 14 have been taken as characteristic of this parameter for the various vehicle categories. Corrections were applied to account for passenger load, i.e., jounce values were in- creased by the same amount that rebound values were decreased. This was done using the listed wheel rates and estimates of passenger load distribution. For the latter a 47% front to 53% rear weight distribution was used for front seat passengers, and 17% front to 88% rear for rear seat passengers (Ref. 8). Passenger weight was taken as 176 Ib per person. 4.7.8 Wheel Camber Tabular values of wheel camber angle yersus wheel vertical travel relative to the vehicle are required for the right and left front wheels. For a solid rear axle the rear suspension is assumed to have zero camber. Figure 17 shows some representative values plotted for a double transverse linkage, front independent suspension, ‘typical of many North American cars, The data extracted from Reference 20 exhibit camber change only. Positive values of camber angle are defined-as being clockwise when viewed from the rear.-18- 4.8 Steering and Drive Line System Values of the parameters used to describe the stecring and drive line system ound in the literature are shown tabulated in Table 13. This is one area of vehicle dynamics where there is indeed a lack of data. Reference 21 represents one of the earlic Studies of the dynamics of the steering system. ‘The importance of friction was clearly demonstrated. References 3 and 13 are both related to the Cornell analysis, In the former additional degrees of freedom were added to detail more completely the steering- drive line system. Reference 13 is related to the NRC cable barrier studies wherein the Cornell analysis of Reference 2 is used directly. In all of these cases the analyses are made effective at the front wheels. .- ! Values measured on the NRC test vehicle (Ref. 18) using an air bearing system Were related to the cable barrier test configurations. In this case the steering whecl was Secured against rotation. Steering flexibility was measured, therefore, for this condition ‘The magnitude of the coulomb friction was determined also, Since all values are made effective at the front wheels, the effective magnitude of the moment of inertia was assume to be essentially that due to the steering wheel. ‘This would be very nearly the ease since Steering wheel inertia reflected at the front wheels is proportional to the square of the overall steering ratio. In view of the absence of more definitive data steering system Parameters were assumed to be the same for all vehicle categories. It is recognized that steering system flexibility and friction are likely dependent on vehicle category. 4.9 Data Sheets Vehicle data were requested from the major American automotive manufacturers ‘The parameters requested for each of the vehicle categories were in relation to the Comell analysis, These data are reproduced in Tables 14, 16 and 16. For purposes of this study ride rates given in Tables 15 and 16 were interpreted as being wheel rates. Also, corrections were applied to approximate values for the curb weight condition in cases where data reflected contrary load conditions 5.0 APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS: The results of this study have been used to calculate representative values of the Several parametors considered herein. These are shown in Table 17 for the vehicle categories used to describe the passenger class of vehicles. ‘Table 17 has been used inis on, ned ers. the -19- turn to generate the data sets required for vehicle-terrein-cable barrier parametric studies, and these are shown tabulated in Table 18. For the parametric studies rear axle roll centre has been assumed to coincide with the axle centre of gravity, which is considered, in turn, to coincide with the geo- metric centre. It is anticipated that this will have minimal effect on system response. Also suspension travel to the suspension stops has been assumed to be the same for jounce and rebound in compliance with the Cornell analysis (Ref. 2) used in the study. Values given are the average of jounce and rebound, calculated using the results of Table 14 as described in the text (pg. 17). Coulomb damping values are the average of those reported in References 3 and 13 (Table 13). Sprung mass centre of gravity location and sprung mass pitch moment of inertia were calculated by parts, using the total vehicle values and the mass distribution in Table 17. Since both values of yaw moment of inertia are listed in"Table 17, a check was made by calculating the total value using the rigid body mass distribution. Values com- pared within 7% or better. In the absence of more definitive data steering system parameters have been assumed to be the same for all vehicles. ‘This assumes the same steering wheel moment of inertia and overall gear ratio for each category, Although front wheel size is different for the various vehicles listed in Table 18, their contribution to the total system moment, of inertia is considered small. ‘These assumptions are quite likely reasonable ones. Steering compliance, on the other hand, is likely a function of vehicle size as well as transmission type. The value given for stecring stiffness is taken, therefore, as rep- resentative with the anticipation that this parameter is of secondary importance to the vehicle~cable barrier response. Finally the values of the auxiliary roll stiffness were derived as described in the footnote to Table 12a. 6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS Tho primary objective of this study was to derive vehicle parameter data sets for vehicle-terrain-cable barrier parametric studies. A secondary objective was to evaluate the possibility of formulating parametric relationships whigh could be used to calculate typical values of the required parameters. In the main both of these objectives have been made. An implication of the latter aspect of this study is that vehicle dynamic response will scale in a dimensional sense.- 20+ One observation noted during the course of this investigation is that the generation of vehicle parameter data tends to lag analytical development, The steering-drive line system is a case in point. Very few values of the parameters characterizing this vehicle subsystem have been found, Also vehicle data reported in the literature tend to be pro- Pagated from author to author with the result that there comes a time when its relevancy becomes questionable. These deficiencies could be remedied by a systematic program of parametric measurements carried out by interested agencies, and made on a few selected vehicles Tepresentative of a given class. These data could then be used to derive parametric relationships as outlined in this study. ‘This, in turn, could provide the basis for gener- ating relevant vehicle data sets apropos to vehicle dynamic studies, Facilities for the Seourate and reliable measurements of vehicle parameters exist. For example, Ref- erence 22 describes an extensive laboratory facility designed for vehicle parameter measurements affecting understeer and brake steer. This facility ean accommodate a variety of vehicles. In addition the Structures and Materials Laboratory here at the National Research Council has an air bearing system which forme the basis for a vehicle parameter measuring system; and has been used, in fact, to measure the data set for the NRC test vehicle (Ref. 13). 7.0 REFERENCES Le Pinkney, H. F. L. The NAE Model of the Highway Cable Barrier for Basso, G. L. Parametric Studies of Vehicle Redirection Using Fraser, I. J. Digital Simulation. National Research Couneil of Canada, National Acronautical Establishment, Report No. MS-133, May 1972. 2 McHenry, R. R. Vehicle Dynamics in Single Vehicle Accidents- De Leys, N. J. Validation and Extension of a Computer Simulation. Cornell Acronautical Laboratory Inc. , Buffalo, New York 14221, CAL Report No, VJ-2251-V-3, December 1968. 3 ‘The Bendix Corporation Vehicle Handling: Volumes One and Two. ‘The Bendix Corporation Research Laboratories, Southfield, Michigan, $0 April 1970. 4. Nagy, 3 Dimensional Analysis of Vehicles Why, How, What. Seligson, A 1961 SAE National Automobile Week , Detroit, Michigan, March 13-17, 1961.at, 10, 1 12, 13. 4. Rasmussen, R. E. Hill, Fy Riede, P. M. Wells, W. T. McHenry, R. R. De Leys, N. J. McHenry, R. R. Segal, D. L. De Leys, N. J. Basso, G. L. Whitcomb, D. W. Milliken, W. F. ‘Typical Vehicle Parameters for Dynamic Studies. General Motors Proving Ground, Report No, A-2542, April 1970. Tire Cornering - Braking Data. Supervisor ~ Advance Chassis Component Design, Engineering and Rescarch, Chrysler Corporation, April 23, 1971. Automobile Dynamics - A Computer Simulation of Three - Dimensional Motions for Use in Studies of Braking Systems and of the Driving Task, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory Inc. , Buffalo, -New York 14221, CAL Report No. VJ-2251-V-7, August 1970. AMA Specifications - Passenger Car, 1969. Issued 1 October 1968, Revised 3 February, 1969 Determination of Physical Criteria for Roadside Energy Conversion Systems. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory Inc., Buffalo, New York 14221, CAL Report No. VJ-2251-V-1, July 1967. Chrysler Canada Limited, Chrysler Centre, Windsor, Ontario, Canada Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan 48121 General Motors of Canada Limited, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, L1G 1K7. A Methodology for Measurement of Vehicle Parameters Used in Dynamic Studies. National Reséarch Council of Canada, National Acronautical Establishment, Report No, MS-134, duly 1973. Design Implications of a General Theory of Automobile Stability and Control. Research in Automobile Stability and Control and in Tove Performanee, ‘The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Automobile Division, pp. 83 - 107, 1956.15. 16. aq. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22, Schilling, R. Fuchs, H. 0. Gray, C. Kruse, D. F, Edwards, R. C. Cole, D. E. Polhemus, Von D. Segel, L Nedley, A. L. Wilson, W. J. ~22- Modern Passenger - Car Ride Characteristics. Journal of Applied Mechanics, pp. A~59 to A-66, dune 1941, Vehicle Dynamics Terminology SAE J670 a, SAE Recommended Practice, Society of Automotive Engineers Inc. , Lexington Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017, December 1965. Parametric Study of Vehicle Dynamic Response. Digitek Corporation, Marina del Rey, California, Volume II, November 1970. Automotive Suspension Bumpers - A correlation of parameters affecting impact response and a technique for achieving effective design. Society of Automotive Engineers, mid-year meeting, Detroit, Michigan, May 20 ~ 24, 1968, Elementary Vehicle Dynamics ~ Course Notes. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, September 1971 ‘An Analysis of the Suspension Problems of the Automotive Vehicle. General Motors Engineering Journal, pp. 8-18, March - April 1954. ‘On the Lateral Stability and Control of the Auto- mobile as Influenced by the Dynamics of the Steering System ‘Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry, Paper No. 65-WA/MD-2, November 7 - 11, 1965. A Now Laboratory Facility for Measuring Vehicle Parameters Affecting Understeer and Brake Steer. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp., SAE National Automobile Engineering Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, May 22-26, 1972.oot “ie urn “hnon omtousiny “Handy BE apseweg AMOENOABS luonetusny eveanonpuens siH9eH Je) GL ses sneuING 9G JO HINA PAE RE CAEL + Taine send ey recewnjons vere) | it see | one's | ssure | one's | ses'st | oxe'er | concus | seveor # we | ae a wae [Hee cag e eee | gas | aw 20's ere, ere | eee os were e fe Gee Fossi> sans Gada wndewot aaeieh | Ue wes | ewer Tee aun w nae prog as oeyune | oe 1 wee oe £ piece | oor bet asse aaa se Pow verre waa aa | as were oaie'e on tor | tae ere 1 aae"e a fer we | us soe a or sec | see . on ot a | ae sss-b 1 ooc'e sit sa | eer wer | oe Seca re on ac) to | ie BPeo owe sutgue att ago Tawns waiwee | ae | vet| awe | veo | soe ron iat wa | ae [oar queen at aT Dias me woes | an | we wet | nee ie we fe 6 vee | coe i ts fist tie ox | ase ney sods ot hs sie | aoe os see | toe oe on sua vaa | vm] sw | can] oes | vee ean (Caan eee Ae eee ee Tekh ‘ wise) = ADNIAOUA aR ave Ai) SAOLLYASIOTY 3oe Tm pre | aaa te foot S| see we leery | oo " vs cee fom eeu | we | oo ‘ we tote sweet . ac : ‘ ° = nf ee 5 tesut wl oe t wpe 2 testa a foce 5 ep ee 2 a fare ° spe Ly W BW [Wea vanessa | ong sme apa ioe Sac SNE a, wave aa ealwe-o7- i eye | 888 ts | 1p s00p-¢ YoUaNRIL Ped = tsar Taine menace Saeed sae Faas ee TT Oe Te | ctaseet we Sogeea wRENEHICA nee 16 Hie 10709 ELS 00°9 ts sys oct showy wees es anes eats 20 erusssr os 6 anys ex ehiseat > 6 syst Exe wre | etsuoo eas | eas 6 oe ayes a00p 2 1819 EPO prise fis | ese 2 96 o/s oop ¥= 82T eussot fas | ee » ose 3/98 a yetoeos Fat srxsio ois | ese a 5°96 2p r= 01s sist pis | sis ord Soop 2-018 etxst'y 20s = 16 site Soop 2 giza wsiea eusssr bas | oes vue ane x03 190 eons ots | coe ew iy9e ona 0} eis o9 gos | tos oe 2 aa fact tev re | ous psu 6 ag 10}0E10D feces sus | yas eon % fea maui Hxsrs sus | ous eon 36 Swteoug 2°10" ons w | a | en wo oy swan oa seru_| oosa_| pune rte stent 309 repose pee a SPL a So ‘Jowspelva snust = se10UHIa4 wapNaseva od SKOILVOIaIOSASOY “ru0dul ae Siesuog “suelo =28- var ear ers Be Sasha st eee 3 wutojied moun Ave {op stied eins Ca sora sag veo a sazcaawy a atx E9 os ren op hes 0 eomvere sfc is fea ante aon : en tet ooste & Sot adn “are a sean es sapien a Ne re = i a me ive i wie oe rn Span Sune oxo Reg os Heea “ asco antes xe ses doops LL Snore r93 Ying 2 Boop Ope 9 siopne ROPE “9-3 Co Fee ana senyiuosa spas poe ms ates) nave12 )0 Siow jwonsoa e ye saujonuao apse [oayM oF eahe|ea apENs syOWoaNsUTEL ZOEADAO y wee “Seodows 9246-15 30 [eI ve [rue were [svyar-ee o1/e-0at someseay a rw [ee] wire Weta TESTIDES ORT Boar over | 3c yee 1a ‘@VT pied g1t oy | eee 8 wert jes aogpas04> U6 wor | tue zictat jog a1t4ouspl0 S861 our | sor eye-eet SuselGaT 20078], O26E pear | ree syoveet donee as6 “Kroines ovespounoiey Jo (e018 oe oreo safeione wu ve wee Sehieoa FIST sror | sree uso, puvd oer ear | eer 'qstspl0 226 zor | vee suvjane Pcl $usl wo} rie : yawyg ewwiis aenwod 696t sor | ree zie ‘use ps0 O:ét oer | cu wes | after ows twee | eee wer | 71-62 Seely weld SUSE ‘aoboyeo jouduoa Jo jem0 os ouster | ets syeotr va [oa .— ie) wee or Georg wneud ane vor | ese arse wratt ‘woke 90a GOEL exe | one ee ayt-n0t readoad 108 9961 oer | exe a went seis 40a 026 ose | ese a nt 380 93900, ve | oe arta yout ‘woumneag gyat | — {aoBoye9 vandeaune yo 1d roe | ete were | sivere sn/si-96 eotuseay rae [ose ver 7 vies Teueuag over tae | ose wees | arensz sy1-o0t ode puog 1LoT ssc | ose eys-re % a/e-96 ‘wuosug Fehog eae | oz gore | tig wets ‘nevea #361 a fey or zea ae wr Sa ae ieee seeai29yR Jo Wend Tucgiong Pomme spay aseqiaa4a, pe1k pe HN “LOVINOD ATGVO ~ ATOINIGA Os HXvHUAAO AVA ONY INOW oatave ody “oely Daas | >a= 30 -coeftented ys seguins uu Og Sot uo pao, ia yz) peo OaLRRER CTY and op sae anENONC Ty ss0ss9)0u cue ers wt 00% jonah pee t26t 1 souosat bat ote si. fs Grnysunont ose 136t 1 soeos3)a ee e oor Teer Tyonsues) 2)50008 HEE Ur esuaseyoy, ear ee ee 806" oedannsts) eld #1 21 soos eee ers ra very “paps rset Hasse re ee an foe's sepa Hasuapa on oe ur vase ‘pee 4h sousoo oe oe “6 ore speounanes Ht oy sane S60 wwe wos sre wo" Bea mg a98 sIsEa4D exe ous a na oe sur meat ‘en. upog tacsa9 o3p00 E46L 1 usa) tor -} et vas mt weve ‘hao See “owpas ete Cuet B cor ew ost ot say ea ose “a adopry wet edt 1 vr ow See a sore sen toe LAN Joop sion 63a bana, ro ee vas um wre S105 tapas seeps ee AND GUET sp sous eu ve ow va 00's apa Joop eoeanben meS00T adem wones 2000 bse ow wat 9" syieg Suoog sinbsaje sora gE ou ers eo 092 sms 9 "eopossooprz wolea eRe 8 2 fot 30° SA "W/W 200p—c RUS GET ame Tove nad Bey Bade aon » waver epee a ae) oreo sono, | seeHPU Pent rus ANDIaH AmIAVHD 40 amANaD esta,=32- suede 40 spe see 0% ors‘ os" wee kez ww ter oe soot nove a ne paoads wa swe eK Borads SHA wy raad ou ss ese'e zis soa'e oso" oz ot or wou" ear ose'e sou" 882 zu ry nz'e res sou'e owe se est is 262 se our'e o69"F bee eel +r Les 'S soy oee es ‘sog'h eee ee ot 8 val 99h ow, ocs"t 9 sunsagou 1s 1st os eae‘ 29% oe oun" “9 pues Tee el TP ose sor s16"S Suit | sendy wosy 982 abl Lb 20's tor sore. Otl'y 1 user sonen st ear w ave 807 ose" stor 2 ssem Sunads 00g eit ee ites vee s19'2 Ooze" . eet cot + $96" ste ose'z > cite oot s6 ze oze"t one osr'z oov'e st st ¥ car't a2 seat ste'e sor 9 i 800"T ue sab't use st eat =X (B-3us) | Ga-Ba1s) noali a ~ Seas) ea w bivcadeshetase (gi Sn18) wnssul jo ionpoag mvA - [lou PaIENaTED How - eg, Wisuy jo Wawoy Seep aaadg | wyBIem @ VILWINI JO LONGOYA sAVA ~ TIOU S8VIN ONNUAS ATOMEA or giava.= 34 - ora. aaiosge eH it siruyvoade ps bowen gue sanded je 4 15h Bane 4 Sued MoMZO\E-Feny Ue ade 98 pnogoa pe sounof 10) e1Np 20% “Es S049) 2943084 s8stose yoni we soph @ aoubasjay asa oq, maj ole oa pak ose seu [wess [seew [ose [eareeial seu | waa [in| wo oan] wor sows Ga) gsne163 &) oney, z PO paw ote solastusaovuvuo noisis.asns ieanava,i 35 - suseavton ous snes mane) Pm Te | ina Baits Mean acer | mano J Ree sree Ss ww" row Pace | rte) | rem |e | wiarastonetarirr | too [eae [eos seo | we [ocr as temo wrcrecame see — | ame feo fee | ma fae Jue fan | nis faouey| ait | names voehrat woradeneaseie| an faa fees | acer fan fase foe | ane [ame] ae | names wovmmetean sco | oz | [ase | aa | oe fs 20 | 6 aay) | ante ste 1 ms ies 11913 Douge Coronet Seder 3160 sis | eno ara [108 x28 | aor mez | dank) | 192 | Reference 10° os | oy Es wraomunrev one, | ace fear fee | ma fam faa for | ave fem) on | mamneso soles Be Bs wernt cat | som fois forse | ao | aser fina {as | a finer] as | nammneis Ne orean were mtonmer | ee for foo | aa fan ao fae | ar firma] a | scmmeess rweromercomner | ae sea foes | aes | ce fain Jom | ase famucs| es | netneess inetnmirormtany | ome [ore [eee | mr [ses [ae |e fea fsmuo) a | meme sr er ne) eos foto fous | ance [ass fase | so | aan |aewer| st | tomeee co mao fas [oe wo [am | 2 ses Reto i8 ong wo lo eo se [00 | ow tate 18 wegtoecsteansoe | anos Le |e we | 3 icf fii rca rinane 2c t.a02 | s20s | ses | oes ve | aa jealaay Aer 8 werrimesoce.toun| ame [ean | ao win sw hee saves | apanense tne ome fee fo | see | 0 lw tet vee il C5 tc ne thay OE wy ey = tren | a ty eh ly oa an geass (©) tet me gen ving as : 1, = 07807, forty 1 = 06407, for)= 36 - TABLE IDA eat HOLL SHIPERESS re ee ee nen cae |e an oe vanenaroe | OP | Bm |S ae | wean | eaamme | alton ron] mw nw [tar] ew fr [Joy fs [yt [at rorwroatome feos [eas loo | 95 [acer aa | | ase] an | on vwonrimicaonrn fos fer fia | 04 some | | oe |e | ses [ae | ow avmitine — ars feos fin Jor [aca an | |) on =| on rmravainesoin [ona fase fo fine fw |, | an | an | aot | aes am | sera poi conmnt [oie [eco hos | 2s fae | on | oo fone a| on sortcnnrtor toi fern [eaa fis | i wel» [es] mle 100d ont 034} sozsjroey| ra seas | aso | faa | aso | aoe | oe erate asa'| sso ta [no [econ we)» | uo] as wa] tere eet reales fae fue | sus) ae| oo [as] ne fin] se i 1014 Tone sae |a28 fice | 30 won| ao] oo fa | ae [ent oe : sete suo) eas jure | 122 was| a] a {=| fale | scons we fee fino [ae suse fan | mo | soe) ace [se] oe | i congas a [oo | fee saw | a} oa | a | ae [ae] oe | fended a fer fics [ins soos [00 | 20 | 6s | am [ase] 8 1869 Ferd Sen wo fos [oe | ass some] aor) | soe] am | om | oe ee fee cee ioe | ae ioe as | wn] ow 1969 Pairhane 800, wos |e [re | 00 |ases 2a 428 az 2 ar 2808 Linen se [atte 100 jatar a| » jojo | | w| os For rool tin 1) Nevonter (Rp, = ky #20 2) wuheoboer (yy, © TE Ke + 20 Sa cohurne ay oy 1, 06, 2) eaten Uy AE Ka 4 ATA . my + 07647~37- TABLE 13 STEERING AND DRIVE LINE SYSTEM Parameter Description and Typical Value Comments Moment of inertia of the steering wheel (Igy) (lb-sec?~in) Moment of inertia of one front wheel (Igy) (lb-sec?~in) Coulomb friction (C,) (ib-in) Viscous damping derivative (ib- in/rad sec) Flexibility (Ib-in/rad) Drive line inertia (Ub sec? in) 0.6 (about its own axis of rotation 446.4 (effective about the kingpin axis ~ Igy effective about 8 Kingpin axis 17.64 600 (effective at the wheel both sides included) 1608 (total system about kingpin axis) \ (Hj) 400 (front whee!) 2.2 (for steering wheel) (Kj) | 6000 (steering column and gear box (Ks) 28600 (steering linkage (Kg, } | 75900 (total system (Ksg) | 51000 (total system (K,) 0.6 (for rear drive (,)) Reference 3 Reference 21 Reference 8 Reference 21 References 21 and 13 Reference 21 Reference 3 Reference 3 Reference 21 Reference 13 | Reference 3 ‘Test Vehicles: Reference 8: 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 4-dr. H/T, 390 C.LD. 2v, V-8 engine, automatic transmission, power steering and power drum brakes Reference 21: 1953 Buick Reference 13: 1963 Pontiac Strato Chief, 6 cyl. engine, standard transmission= 38 - TABLE 14 REPRESENTATIVE DATA FOR CHRYSLER PRODUCTION MODELS T H 1973 Valiant | 1978 Dodge |1973 Chrysler | Parameter Units Sedan 225 CID |Coronet Sedan | New Yorker 6 Cyl. Eng 8Cyl. Eng. | 8Cyl. Eng Wheelbase in ui 1176 } 128.5 ‘Track: Front in 59.1 619 | 623 Rear in 55.6 62.0 63.4 Rear Spring Spacing at Axle in 43.02 473 473 Whee! Centre Height in 121 125 13.4 | Curb Weight: Front tb} 1780 2100 2480 Rear io 1340 1650 2120 Unsprung Weight: Front tb 195 210 255 Rear |b 280 350 415 “Vertical C.G. Height Hin 21.8 22.1 22.3 Moment of Inertia: Roll slug-ft? | 215 295 415 Pitch slug-f? | 1450 1980 2800 Yaw | slug-f2 | 2220 3030 4250 Wheel Rate: Front | toyin 95 105 115 Rear Jibrin | 120 125 120 Roll Rate: Front Ibyin 95 200 | 220 Rear sin 110 120 | 100 *Pull Wheel Travel: Jounce—Front in | sa3 400 | 4.00 Rear in 3.88 3200 | 3.94 Rebound~Front in 3.98 3.84 4.00 | Rear in 555 | 5.60 47 |*Rear Roll Steer % 5 | 5 0 |*Rear Roll Centre Height, in 104 | 403 11.8 | Shock Absorber Rate: Front ] tb-seesin 3 | 4 6 Rear Ib-secfin 5 6 7 8-1/4 axle, 2.71 ratio with 10 in brake and drum assembly Moment of Inertia: Fore and Aft Plane | slug-ft2 16.092 16.092 Vertical Plane slug-12 | 16,159 16.159 Latera) Plane slug-f12 0.624 el * At 8 passenger load (2 front, 1 rear)~29- ‘TABLE 15 REPRESENTATIVE DATA FOR GENERAL MOTORS PRODUCTION MODELS Parameter Units | subcompact | Compact | Intermediate | Standard Wheelbase in 87 a uz 121 ‘Track: Front in 55 60 62 64 Rear in 34 60 61 64 Rear Spring Spacing * . * . Wheel Height | in u 12.5 32.7 13.0 ‘Total Weight | w 2450 . | 3200 4200 4450 Front Weight Ib 3300 ~ | 1700 2400 2450 Unsprung Front Weight “ jo ” ”* Rear Weight tb 150 | 1500 1800 2000 Unsprung Rear Weight a ” ” * C.G. Height in 2 | 22 20.5 217 Moment of Inertia: Roll stuge ft? 220. | 310 430 490 Pitch shug-ft2 1200° | 1900 2700 8100 Yaw shug- £02 1200 31900 2700 8300 RollYaw Product of Inertia | slug-fi? | 3 82 13 3 | Rear Axle Moment of Inertia | oa NIA NIA NIA Ride Rate (both wheels): Front | bin | 220° 180 200 210 Rear | Ib/in 250 200 210 230 Rear Roll Steer % 0 5 1 3 Roll Rate: Front Wttideg | 920 | 46 518 620 Rear o-ftjdeg | 245 v0 =| 10 140 | Wheel Travel to Stops faeces . * «| Rear Roll Centre in ul 9 7 ru Damping | ow * ” ” Suspension Stop Spring Rates N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A Not available Not routinely tabulated for current General Motors’ vehicles Can be approximated as per General Motors’ Report A-2542 (Ref. 5)= 40 - TABLE 16 REPRESENTATIVE DATA FOR FORD PRODUCTION MODELS S 1974 Pinto | 1974 Maverick |1974 Torino (1974 Ford Parameter Units [Subcompact | Compact | Intermediate | Standard | Dimensions: ' | Wheelbase in 94.2 108 us| at ‘Track: Front in 55.1 56.4 636 | 64.0 Rear in 55.0 56.5 62.9 64.3 Rear Spring Spacing in 42.2 42.8 33.7 38.44 Wheel Centre Height in 10.7 ia 118 12.4 Mass Parameters: (Design | Load = 1 less than max. no. of passengers) Total Weight b 2925 3879 4694 5065 Weight Distribution: Front | Yo 15040 | s1714 2318 2611 Unsprung Weight: Front tb u47 | 191 287 284 Rear Wb 219 284 855 365 Vertical C.G. (above ground) | in 206° | 20.78 20.4 20.5 Moment of Inertia: Roll | Yo-sec?~in 7 3886 7 ~ Pitch | Wesec2=in | — 24282 - - Yaw | Tb-sec?-in ~ | 25634 - - | i Suspension | | Wheel Spring Rate: Rear Jo/in 95 | 95 130 130 Front | Ibjin 280 | 225 270 300 Rear Roll Steer | % 95 68 8.7 0 Roll Stiffness: Front | t-ftideg | 262 395 782 | 860 Rear W-ftfdeg | 187 226 138 185 | Wheel Travel (metal to metal) | | Front: dounce in 3.37 45 | 4.24 4.10 Rebound in 3.63 45 | 411} 450 | Rear: Jounce in 3.51 3.67 3.07 391 Rebound in 3.26 aie 5.12 6.09 | Rear Roll Centre in 94 8.85 790 | 14.30 Suspension Stop Spring Rat Front yin 1200 865 500 500 Rear ojin 210 285 625 375 Ride Rate: Front Ibjin nL 86 105 12 Rear [tofin 110 119 130 a2 |=e ‘TYPICAL ¥ALUES FOR THE PAESLNGER CLASS OF VBCLES ‘Facuincter (Symbol) (Units) = Comments samara fom |tsneshie] wray wam | won commit feats, 2 [eat he 2 ‘ete eet 34) oso foe | nee | azee | ane | ane tiny ma fas | ie | oe | Be fe | aires few veel eh Ts) wa fossa | es | one | ae eo Beomen si a fme | as [ee | ope Sa |} Pewee wea ey RN) eof fon i Hs 1 | tyramine ae Unde oro wees. cssiom — | asst fem "| aims | gonna | aera | cance uy rasan Touswmmne wae tytn | San Tua | “sie ta |e ta tee Prontamrunr weeny |i Lam | oa ae | os ae Taare ea shone aim [ome | ms | “an | “na | eae | newest en weet rasa) ate Reem ete mato reef asse | 1220 nos | 400 ase (ota Gene, | 8 fae [me] me] ee ear | mm item [ae | om | ae | igh 29 ome mf |e | aa | seta iaet emo) (iru | [ak | ae) || ath [pms Sicratare" (iiemst | 8S] BG) DE | RE | RS | RS [froma iterative tomo | as | ae | a | ge [pene Geonteinans | we [be | de = ma gay | fat 12a occa, eerie ty {ear ‘no | ac a ms ae [fais smo (ang) | BE | |B) | fans gemmoeee, (egy | it | ag | ag as aa aaa | feria Wee uel jouer an bound nl] = - fo - ye de atom, ae I |-42- aoa oa ee ae) ge) gh) em we | oas sae eee! Bees ea ea eee clea | ! 10.4055, | oe esos sim) nee) gare Be] ee | ae | ae wT _ ieee eect ee geet ree eigen wast vara! ate | rans se | ame fea 5 eee we Et aes teas | an | we25 a) RR) AR) ge mB) om) alos he mo) wg) ly 1 SB) ow) owe] oe in ee |r Gel sn 7 7SPACE -FIXED AXES. ANALYTICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE VEHICLE FIG.1SBIGNLS DINVNAG STOIHSA Os GIXINDAY SYBLANVUVd JIOIHSA 40 LYVHO MOT4 2 old episeceauunes nao oe ee Carr oe ue a ee eee =6961 Hv3A Nowonaoud — Jose= 46 - SOLLSIUSLOVEVHD SIL G3LVINOWS ANY TWLN3WIY3dXa 4O NOSINVdNOD “WOldAL O0zb = bv gz=ev ooze = av sasiv 000s = ov SINAINAIS00 3080S WuaLVT 7 ~ | @1~ 30404 WNYON core TWIN3WIN3aX3 80 =(7/) NOLS 40 LN3ID144300 NOlWNIONI ‘930 € isd @e lv Gi-@Zr~ 3zIS 3uIL bola loo— o & 1 ~ 30404 TwesLW7 loozt {oooAVERAGE CURB OR UNLADEN WEIGHT ~LB. nat PRODUCTION YEAR 1974 soook 4000 3000b Wr = (2.451) 1073 23, 2000+ 1000 \ 1 : 1 1 1 2 30 705 715 wo TO 740 oe: PRODUCTION YEAR 1969 . 4000 3o00b Wr = (2.254)10°3 2, 2000 000 L 1 : 1 1 1 80 20 700 TW zo 130 740 AVERAGE WHEELGASE LENGTH ~ IN FIG. 5 TOTAL WEIGHT AS A FUNCTION OF WHEELBASE LENGTH~ 48 - oor PRODUCTION YEAR 1974 70/30f- % FRONT/REAR =62.727 0.0629 tw 60/40} 50/50b 40/60 30/70 20/80} Smee 80 30 100) 110 120 130) PRODUCTION YEAR 1969 AVERAGE FRONT/REAR TOTAL WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION ~ % so/20- OST % FRONT/REAR = 60.118 ~ 0.049120 60/40 —_ € 50/50 40/60} 30/70} 20/80) 10/90) 80 90 00 Cr) 120 130 AVERAGE WHEELBASE LENGTH ~ IN, FIG. 6 TOTAL WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION AS A FUNCTION OF, WHEELBASE LENGTHAVERAGE OVERALL LENGTH ~ IN, FIG.7 230b 220F 20F 200 190 ieoh oF 6oF 150+ 2307 220] 210F- 200+ 190 180 + I7ok 160 80 - an PRODUCTION YEAR 1974 NOTE OVERALL LENGTHS REFLECT THE ADDITION OF ENERGY ABSORBING BUMPERS. 36 105 i) 120 PRODUCTION YEAR 1969 —— — Lo = L761 bw Lo =-23.721+ 1.965 fw 90 106 110 720 AVERAGE WHEELBASE LENGTH ~ IN, OVERALL LENGTH AS A FUNCTION OF WHEELBASE LENGTH Lo =-20.966+ 1.994 Lw 130 730~50- PRODUCTION YEAR 1974 WIDTH 70h —— Wo =0.659 tw 60- Wo = 7.162 +0.595 Jw SO 80 99 100 Tio 120 730 60 HEIGHT q te sel Ho = 49.698 + 0.0369 LW 4, a 80 90 105 110 120 130 PRODUCTION YEAR 1969 80 WIDTH AVERAGE OVERALL WIDTH AND HEIGHT ~ IN, HEIGHT sof ee te Ho = 83.073 + 0.01812w Ce a ee a eo 30 100 id 1207 730 AVERAGE WHEELBASE LENGTH ~ IN SOF FIG. 8 OVERALL WIDTH AND HEIGHT AS A FUNCTION OF WHEELBASE LENGTHTor eof 50] TRACK ~ IN 70 60} SOF AVERAGE FRONT AND REAR WHEEL PRODUCTION YEAR 1974 FRONT — — Tr £0532 bw Te = 12.571 40.419 bw 30 100 1S 120 30 PRODUCTION YEAR 1969 FRONT —— + 820 Iw Te =10.275 + 0.427 fw ee ci 70r sof sor 30 100) 110 120 730 REAR — — er05i7 tw Te = 9,345 +0.432 Jw gol 80, FIG.9 30 100 nO. 120 730 AVERAGE WHEELBASE LENGTH ~ IN’ FRONT AND REAR TRACK AS A FUNCTION OF WHEELBASE LENGTHAVERAGE RATIO OF FRONT AND REAR OVERHANG TO WHEELBASE LENGTH ~ % x 8 T 5 T ° -52- —— — %OVERHANG = 0.283 2w % OVERHANG =14.634 + 0.108 ow 20 100 10 20 BO REAR . 40 © 30 20- ———— = % OVERHANG = 0.359 fw % OVERHANG = 2.004 + 0.342 tw 10 ol 1 1 1 1 1 80 20 100 6 2) 3d AVERAGE WHEELBASE LENGTH ~ IN FIG. 10 FRONT AND REAR OVERHANG AS & FUNCTION OF WHEELBASE LENGTH700-- © REF (5) OQ REF(S) © REF (3) 600} © REF (9) © REF(2) X REF (10) + REF (I) 500 g Wor =126.6 40.111 Wr Sy, eee War = 0.144 Wy i + é é a = 2 300- & 5 2 5 © 200 2 too 1000 2600 3000 4000 5000 6000 TOTAL VEHICLE WEIGHT ~ LB FIG.1 UNSPRUNG WEIGHT AS A FUNCTION OF TOTAL WEIGHT~54- sor 40h HT TO OVERALL HEIGHT ~ % C.G. HEIGHT /OVERALL HEIGHT = 39.37 + (0.301) 10"? Wy 3 6 2 x S$ E20 & s S 2 z wh ° 1000 2000 ‘3000 4000 ‘5000 TOTAL VEHICLE WEIGHT ~LB FIG.12 TOTAL VEHICLE C.G, HEIGHT AS A FUNCTION OF TOTAL WEIGHT ,th?/32.2) 5 7 o7| as} AL VEHICLE ~ FT? os| k= 0.0216 Wr? oa —— 1 =0.0788 wi? oat Leek Wey cows? We we wr 6? CALCULATED EXPONENT PITCH a2 Yaw 1.87 ‘OF RADIUS OF GYRATION FOR TOT! oh ‘SQUAR: . 1 0. n i m rn n L 1 1000 2000 3005 “4000 5005-6000 "3000 10000 TOTAL VEHICLE WEIGHT ~ LB, FIG. 13 TOTAL YAW AND PITCH RADII OF GYRATION AS A FUNCTION OF TOTAL: WEIGHTO7 06 05 04 as 0.2 Ol FIG. 14 2 ) ROLL * * SQUARE OF RADIUS OF GYRATION OF VEHICLE 7 | 1000 SPRUNG MASS ~ FT? -86- Yaw 0.183 W157” f —« — — k*=0,0869 wy?/* 4 = 0.0330 wr" — — kK =0.0121 wy? Le wr © wwe wri? CALCULATED _ EXPONENT % DIFF, Yaw 1.87 “6 ROLL 1184 -8 2000 8000 740005060 6000 TOTAL VEHICLE WEIGHT ~ LB. SPRUNG MASS YAW AND. ROLL RADII OF GYRATION AS A FUNCTION OF TOTAL WEIGHTALHOI3M WLOL 30 NOLLONAS V SV VILUSNI JO LONGONd TTON-MVA SSW ONNudS e008. 000% 0008 0902, F t @1~ AHOIM S7OKBA TWLOL ° foot SIKY WaTONIed JO. NOLLWNITONE ~ o SSWW ONNYdS HOd TOW ON Mik NE NOLLWSAD 30 SA = 4 t g gld-on7s~ WLuaW JO LondoLld SS¥H ONNS.MA-"TOW ei X ONISN G3AIIO) look si 9l4Lor ° °o ° 8 29 8 3 & ~e8e tv 1L0F > 2 8 fn = 1.696 =(1.415) 1074 Wy & g E ‘ 3 y gost 2 5 3 8 3 a ee 1500 2000 3000 O00 5000 600 TOTAL VEHICLE WEIGHT ~ LB, 2 a 6or a ° ° 5 8 5. Ey oO oO = aob ca ° 8 5 Ry = 42.17 + (0.125) 107? wy @ 20- : z = 5 i 5 f 2 tee Nh ° 105 2000 3000 4000 5000 S000 TOTAL VEHICLE WEIGHT ~ LB ‘ FIG. 16 SPRUNG MASS BOUNCE NATURAL FREQUENCY AND WHEEL RATE DISTRIBUTION AS A FUNCTION OF TOTAL WEIGHTyee = CAMBER CHANCE ——A\ (REF 20) \ PARALLEL ARMS: WHEEL VERTICAL DEFLECTION ~ IN. 2 CAMBER ANGLE ~ DEG. (REBOUND) \ \ CAMBER - DEFLECTION \ CHARACTERISTICS FOR 1969 FORD GALAXIE 500 - | (REE 3) tof / / Yai ete eit / 2 3 fo 7 comverone ants / 4 -2 4 4 7 4 a mg ~extrarorateons, 7” 8 : ’ ZY -4 FIG. 17 TYPICAL CAMBER ~WHEEL VERTICAL TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS FOR TRANSVERSE LINK INDEPENDENT SUSPENSION