1 Effect of wheelbase and centre of gravity height variances on the control functions “Directional Control” and “Roll- over Control” within a vehicle stability.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ELECTRONIC STABILITY PROGRAM (ESP) LECTURER NAME: MR
Advertisements

UNECE Regulation 13 (braking) Proposed amendment to extend Annex 19 and Annex 20 to cover motor vehicles, especially a vehicle stability function Sheet.
1 VEHICLE DYNAMICS. 2  Increase “track driving” vehicle performance:  Lap time  Stopping distance  Standing start acceleration  Increase “road driving”
The necessity of New Regulations for New Technologies regarding R79 Japan September / 2012 Informal document GRRF (73rd GRRF, September 2012,
Introduction to VISSIM
Dept. Of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Penn State University Vehicle Dynamic Modeling for the Prediction and Prevention of Vehicle Rollover A Comparative,
Background to NHTSA NCAP Ratings for Rollover Resistance
© 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved Automotive Technology, Fifth Edition James Halderman ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL SYSTEMS 108.
Analysis vs. Design When you take a test in your math or physics course, there is one and only one answer! When you do a goal-driven design there may be:
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. PHY093 – Lecture 2a Motion with Constant Acceleration 1 Dimension 1.
Vehicle dynamics simulation using bond graphs
Lec 27, Ch.7, pp : Sight distance at intersections (Objectives) Understand the availability of adequate sight distance is crucial to reduce crashes.
Activity 82 Braking Distance
Analysis of the influence of aiming, on visibility distance and glare Poland 65 GRE, 29 March 2011 Dr EngTomasz Targosinski Informal document No. GRE
ANTI LOCK BRAKING SYSTEM
Electronic Braking and Aid to Vehicle StabilityBradford University1 GRRF Ad-Hoc Working Group Electronic Vehicle Stability Control “Trailers” 25 – 26 November.
Unregistered Motor Vehicles: Safe Operation and Use at Wellesley College.
1 Vehicle Stability Function ● Directional Control ● Roll-over Control A functional overview with regard to commercial vehicles AMEVSC-03-04e August 2010.
United States Rulemaking on Electronic Stability Control (ESC) for Light Vehicles 138 WP.29 March, 2006 Informal document No. WP (138th WP.29,
ANTI LOCK BRAKING SYSTEM
STOPPING DISTANCES REACTION TIME = time for a driver to react Meanwhile the car covers a “ THINKING DISTANCE” OVERALL STOPPING DISTANCE = THINKING DISTANCE.
Public Safety Education Network -- PSEN Winter Driving Thoughts to Consider.
AUTOTRONICS (VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEM)
Middle East Gases Association Transportation Of Dangerous Goods: Bulk Roll Over Accidents and Prevention Paul Vincent.K | Air Liquide Emirates | Dubai.
Vehicle Dynamics Example Problems
 ABS – Function, Design & Working  ABS types  Recent Advancements  Effectiveness & Limitations  Testing & Validation  Job of the Driver  Closing.
ESP Electronic Stability Programs
ECAS (Electronically Control Air Suspension)
Overview of India’s concerns Presentation to GTR - BR members for the 6/MCGTR/Informal meeting 6 th - 7 th June 2006 NHTSA Office, Washington DC Presentation.
Automotive Chassis Systems, 5/e By James D. Halderman Copyright © 2010, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1995 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ All.
Automotive Steering, Suspension and Alignment, 5/e By James D. Halderman Copyright © 2010, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1995 Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle.
© 2006 PSEN Unit – 3 Inspection & Dynamics The inspection process may seem routine but every trip changes things. Always inspect carefully.
1 ACSF Test Procedure Draft proposal – For discussion OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF
EDR Time Coordinate System (GM and Chrysler convention) Actual Time Coordinate System Time Offset = Actual time zero – EDR time zero.
Electronic Stability Control Systems 25 © 2013 Pearson Higher Education, Inc. Pearson Prentice Hall - Upper Saddle River, NJ Advanced Automotive.
Marko Jets Lecturer Faculty of Transport Ecology and Safety as a Driving Force in the Development of Vehicles IP Radom, 02 March – 15 March, 2008 TECHNICAL.
Vehicle Balance, Traction Loss, Roadway and Vehicle Technology Driver Education.
Geometry and Linkage Lecture 1 Day 1-Class 1. References  Gillespie, T., The Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale,
By : Rohini H M USN : 2VX11LVS19.  This system includes sensors for measuring vehicle speed; steering input; relative displacement of the wheel assembly.
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY Module 10 Topic 4 VEHICLE SUSPENSION Helps to smooth out weight transfers Helps keep all four wheels on the ground Helps keep the.
Orientation to Controls Moving Stopping & Steering Smoothly
7th ACSF meeting London, June 28-30, 2016
OBJECTIVES Discuss the need for electronic stability control (ESC).
Informal Working Group on ACSF
ESP Electronic Stability Programs
ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL SYSTEMS
WELCOME.
Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1
Chapter 3 Cruise Control
Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS)
Assignments cont’d… 1. Determine
OBJECTIVES Discuss the need for electronic stability control (ESC).
Industry Homework from AEB 02
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Informal document GRSG
Chapter 1 Introduction.
The Stoplight.
Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW
Electronic Stability Control Systems
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
The Stoplight.
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Definition of aysmax Interpretation 1
Maximum allowable Override Force
Emergency Steering Function
Suspension Systems - 2 Topics covered in this presentation:
Electronic Stability Control Systems
Today’s Agenda…8/17  Quiz Review Marble Race Lab - #3
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
Presentation transcript:

1 Effect of wheelbase and centre of gravity height variances on the control functions “Directional Control” and “Roll- over Control” within a vehicle stability function ■ Directional Control is influenced by the wheelbase ■ Roll-over Control is influenced by the centre of gravity height Consideration of a +/-20% allowance between the vehicles actually tested for the Annex 19 test report and the vehicle(s) for which the test report can be utilized at the time of type-approval. AMEVSC-03-03e August 2010 Prepared by the experts from CLEPA

2 Directional Control – Wheelbase Variance +/-20% ■ Directional Control assists the driver in over-steer and under-steer conditions to maintain the desired direction of travel. The vehicle yaw rate, which is used as a measurement of over-steer and under- steer, is influenced by the vehicle wheelbase. ■ The vehicle stability function algorithm adapts to the actual vehicle wheelbase, by being provided with the actual wheelbase value, as part of the end-of-line programming procedure. ■ Based on the reference yaw rate and the wheelbase there is an intervention threshold – see black ‘intervention threshold nominal’ line in Diagrams I, II and III. The actual measured yaw rate is shown by the red line and its intersection with the black line indicates the start and stop of the directional control intervention. ■ The effect of a +20% and –20% change in wheelbase is shown by the blue and green lines respectively. The green and blue lines indicate the adaption of the algorithm due to a change in the wheelbase. With a longer wheelbase the intervention starts earlier as a vehicle is less agile due to the longer the wheelbase, which means more time is required to reverse the yaw of the vehicle. Conversely, the shorter the wheelbase, the later the start of the intervention can be due to quicker response of the vehicle to intervention actions. ■ Diagram I shows +/-20% on a 4.50m wheelbase, Diagram II -20% on a 3.60m wheelbase and Diagram III +20% on a 6.68m wheelbase. AMEVSC-02-07e August 2010

3 Directional Control – Wheelbase Variance +/-20% The slight difference in the start of interventions, shows the small effect a 20% difference in wheelbase has on directional control functionality. Therefore, due to the logistical difficulties of having suitable vehicles available at the time of conducting the vehicle testing for the test report, an allowance of 20% is deemed to be an appropriate value in support of the maximum and minimum wheelbase values stated in the system manufacturer information document, which are in turn supported by system manufacturer test results. AMEVSC-02-07e August 2010

Time [s] Yaw Rate [rad/s] Intervention Threshold Nominal (4.50m wheelbase) Intervention Threshold Wheelbase +20% Intervention Threshold Wheelbase -20% Measured Yaw Rate Start of Intervention Stop of Intervention Directional Control – 4.50m Wheelbase +/-20% Diagram I AMEVSC-02-07e August 2010

5 Intervention Threshold Nominal (3.60m wheelbase) Intervention Threshold Wheelbase -20% Measured Yaw Rate Start of Intervention Stop of Intervention Directional Control – 3.60m Wheelbase -20% Diagram II Time [s] Yaw Rate [rad/s] AMEVSC-02-07e August 2010

6 Intervention Threshold Nominal (6.68m wheelbase) Intervention Threshold Wheelbase +20% Measured Yaw Rate Start of Intervention Stop of Intervention Directional Control – 6.68m Wheelbase +20% Diagram III Time [s] Yaw Rate [rad/s] AMEVSC-02-07e August 2010

7 Roll-over Control – Centre of Gravity Height Variance +/-20% ■ Roll-over Control takes corrective action in the event of impending roll-over to prevent the roll-over within the physical limits of the vehicle. The lateral acceleration of the vehicle is used as the initial measure of the impending roll-over. ■ The centre of gravity height is a measure that indicates the tendency of a vehicle to roll-over. As it is not possible to directly measure the centre of gravity height for different ‘real world’ loading conditions and types of load, it is estimated using known vehicle parameters e.g. frame height, unladen vehicle centre of gravity height, with assumptions for load density and load height. ■ The lateral acceleration at which the system intervenes (the intervention threshold) is derived from a number of different parameters and signals – vehicle type, loading condition, fast/slow steering, travelling uphill/downhill, demanded engine torque by the driver – and by taking into account other influences such as frame stiffness, suspension, tyres. It is also influenced by driver acceptability considerations. ■ The vehicle stability function algorithm adapts to the actual loading condition of the vehicle (centre of gravity height) by estimating the vehicle mass from engine torque (engine management system information modified to take into account drive-line losses) and vehicle acceleration (driver demand and wheel speed sensor information). AMEVSC-02-07e August 2010

8 Roll-over Control – Centre of Gravity Height Variance +/-20% ■ The roll-over threshold nominal centre of gravity height is shown by the black line in Diagram V and the effect of a +20% and –20% change in centre of gravity height is shown by the blue and green lines respectively. The actual lateral acceleration threshold at which an intervention starts and stops is shown by the light blue line. ■ As the centre of gravity height increases, the roll-over threshold approaches the intervention threshold, and once the measured lateral acceleration crosses the roll-over threshold the vehicle will roll-over. Therefore, either the threshold is lowered or the roll-over control is centre of gravity height limited. ■ Once the lateral acceleration exceeds the intervention threshold, vehicle speed is reduced (brakes automatically applied and engine power reduced). If wheel ‘lift off’ is also detected, maximum vehicle speed reduction is demanded. ■ The relationship between the intervention threshold and the roll-over threshold is shown in Diagram IV for a number of different fully laden vehicles under the conditions of a J-turn test conducted at 60 km/h. AMEVSC-02-07e August 2010

9 Roll-over Control – Centre of Gravity Height Variance +/-20% The difference in roll-over threshold, in terms of lateral acceleration, for a 20% variation in centre of gravity height is relatively small. As the centre of gravity height increases, it approaches the intervention threshold and either the threshold is lowered or the roll-over control is centre of gravity height limited. Therefore, due to the logistical difficulties of having suitable vehicles available at the time of conducting the vehicle testing for the test report, an allowance of 20% is deemed to be an appropriate value in support of the maximum centre of gravity height value stated in the system manufacturer information document, which is in turn supported by system manufacturer test results. AMEVSC-02-07e August 2010

10 Roll-over Control – Roll-over and Intervention Thresholds Diagram IV Roll-Over ThresholdIntervention Threshold J-turn (increasing curvature) test at 60 km/h with different fully laden vehicles AMEVSC-02-07e August 2010

11 Roll-over Control – 1680 mm Centre of Gravity Height +/-20% Diagram V Time [s] Lateral Acceleration [m/s 2 ] Measured Lateral Acceleration Start of Intervention Stop of Intervention Roll-over Threshold Nominal CoG (1680 mm) Roll-over Threshold CoG +20% (2000 mm) Roll-over Threshold CoG -20% (1500 mm) Intervention Threshold AMEVSC-02-07e August 2010