0% found this document useful (0 votes)
27 views8 pages

Roll Gradient and ARB Validation Results

Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
27 views8 pages

Roll Gradient and ARB Validation Results

Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

VALIDATION

ROLL GRADIENT VALIDATION


The weight distribution is assumed to be 0.454. The roll rate distribution is varied from 0.5,
0.55, 0.6 and 0.65 and the roll gradient is varied from 0.6, 0.525, 0.45 (degrees/g).

The total no. of setups for the car using above roll gradient and roll rate distribution come
out to be 12. Below is the process for validating the same:

Theoretical calculation:
Through calculations desired ride rate was found to be = 214lb-ft/deg
And SMR = 1.18

Based on the last car’s compliance factor from SMR validation setup, an SMR of 1.42 was
decided theoretically in order to finally achieve an SMR of 1.18.

The geometry was hence designed according to an SMR of 1.42.


MEASURING SMR AND RIDE RATES USING
CHASSIS SETUP BENCH

-A setup bench was created to hold the chassis onto the ground rigidly for high
loads.
Following is an image of the setup.

Linear Potentiometer for


spring travel.

Linear potentiometer for


wheel patch travel.

Lead screw jacks were used to lift the


loaded wheels manually and linear
potentiometer was kept at wheel center
patch.
Laser light was attached at
the wheel center on the hub
to get the deflection projected Laser was attached to the chassis near the
onto a graph paper. rocker pivot to account for the chassis
bench mounting compliance
RESULTS:
 SMR with ARB and Spring was measured and it came out to =1.15

Practical SMR
1200

1000

800
Spring Travel

600

400 y = -1.1518x + 1361.4


R² = 0.9999
200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Wheel Centre Travel

 Ride rates at the Wheel Patch was calculated with spring to accommodate tire stiffness
using the setup bench for the loaded wheel and it came out to be:

Krf= 36.192 N/mm equivalent to 206lbs/in


SMR= 0.58

Ride Rate
900
800 y = 36.192x - 977.21
700 R² = 0.9877
600
500
Load

400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Wheel Patch Deflection
 Roll rate (Krf) and Roll Gradient calculation (change unit***)

Wheel rate (ARB only) - Soft Setting


250
y = 17.93x - 72.59
200 R² = 0.9918

150
Load (N)

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-50
Wheel centre travel (mm)

Wheel rate (ARB only) - Stiff Setting


250
y = 27.6x - 29.664
200 R² = 0.9829

150
Load (N)

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
-50
Wheel centre travel (mm)
COMPARISON OF PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL RESULTS

Theoretical Practical
SMR 1.18 1.15
Ride Rate 212 lb/in 206 lb/in
Roll Rate (softest ARB) 17059.322 lb-ft/rad 23804lbs-ft/rad
(stiffest ARB) 25873.312 lb-ft/rad 26905 lbs-ft/rad
Roll Gradient (stiffest) 0.6 deg/g 0.45 deg/g
(softest) 0.45 deg/g 0.4 deg/g

 Roll gradient from IMU data:

Roll Gradient Scatter Plot

Roll Angle (degree) (y-axis) vs Lateral Acceleration (in g’s) (x-axis)

Estimated Roll Gradient = 0.56 degree/g


G – G DIAGRAM
The Final IMU g-g plots are as follows: -

SKIDPAD TRACK
Ax

Ay
Front and Rear Softest ARB Setting
Observation : Lower Car limit compared to other set
Ax

Ay

Front ARB: Stiffest setting; Rear ARB: Softest setting


Observation: Highest Limit compared to other settings
Ax

Ay

Front and Rear Stiffest ARB Setting


Observation: Less region in higher limits compared to 2nd

Ax

Ay

Front ARB: Softest setting; Rear ARB: Stiffest setting


Observation: Driver Feedback was not good

You might also like