0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Multi-Objective Optimization of the Handling Performances of a Road Vehicle: A Fundamental Study on Tire Selection

[+] Author and Article Information
Carlo Miano, Massimiliano Gobbi, Giampiero Mastinu

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano (Technical University), Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32, 20133 Milan, Italy

J. Mech. Des 126(4), 687-702 (Aug 12, 2004) (16 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1759359 History: Received January 01, 2003; Revised December 01, 2003; Online August 12, 2004
Copyright © 2004 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Mitschke, M., 1990, Dynamik der Kraftfahrzeuge, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Dixon, J., 1991, Tyres, Suspensions, and Handling, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Özgüner, Ü., Ünyelioğlu, K. A., and Hatipoğlu, C., 1995, “An Analytical Study of Vehicle Steering Control,” IEEE Conference on Control Applications.
Xia, X., and Willis, J. N., 1996, “The Effects of Tire Cornering Stiffness on Vehicle Handling Linear Behavior,” SAE Transactions.
Schuller, J., Haque, I., and Fadel, G., 2000, “Methods for Simulation-Based Optimization of Vehicle Handling Behavior,” DE-Vol. 106 Advanced Vehicle Technologies, Orland, ASME.
Guo, K. H., Zong, C. F., Kong, C. F., and Chen, M. L., 2000, “Objective Evaluation Correlated With Human Judgement—An Approach to the Optimization of Vehicle Handling Control System,” International Journal of Vehicle Design.
Lin, B. Z., and Guo, K. H., 1998, “Analysis and Optimization of Handling Performance of a Car Performing a Lane Change Manoeuvre,” International Journal of Vehicle Design.
Fujita, K., Hirokawa, N., Akagi, S., and Hirata, T., 1998, “Design Optimization of Multi-Link Suspension System for Total Vehicle Handling and Stability,” AIAA Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization.
McRuer, D., and Klein, R., 1996, “Effects of Automobile Steering Characteristics or Driver/Vehicle Performance of Regulation Tasks,” SAE Technical Paper 760778.
Aurell, J., Frojd, N., and Nordmark, S., 2000, “Correlation Between Objective Handling Characteristics and Subjective Perceptions of Handling Qualities of Heavy Vehicles,” Proceeding AVEC 2000, Ann Arbor.
Crolla, D. A., Chen, D. C., and Whitehead, J. P., 1998, “Vehicle Handling Behavior: Subjective v. Objective Comparisons,” F98T210, Paris, FISITA World Automotive Congress.
Crolla, D. A., Chen, D. C., Whitehead, J. P., and Alstead, C. J., 1998, “Vehicle Handling Assessment Using a Combined Subjective-Objective Approach,” SAE Paper No. 980226, Detroit, SAE World Congress and Exposition.
Crolla, D. A., and Whitehead, J. P., 2001, “Reliable Subjective Assessment of Vehicle Handling by Drivers—Is It an Elusive Goal?” DE-Vol. 112 Advanced Vehicle Technologies, New York, ASME.
Genta, G., 1997, Motor Vehicle Dynamics, World Scientific.
Miettinen, K., 1999, Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
Matusov, J. B., 1995, Multicriteria Optimization and Engineering, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
Osyczka, Andrezej, 1985, “Multicriteria Optimization for Engineering Design,” Design Optimization, Academic Press.
Colorni, Alberto, 1991, Ricerca Operativa, CittàStudi, Milan, I.
Gobbi, M., Doniselli, C., Mastinu, G., Guglielmetto, L., and Pisino, E., 1999, “Optimal & Robust Design of a Road Vehicle Suspension System,” Proc. of the XVI IAVSD Symposium, IAVSD.
Miano, C. M., Gobbi, M., Mastinu, G., and Cesarini, R., 2000, “On the Integrated Design of Tyre-Suspension System of a Racing Car,” DE-Vol. 106 Advanced Vehicle Technologies, ASME.
Miano, C. M., Gobbi, M., and Mastinu, G., 2001, “A Tutorial on Present and Future Applications of Global Approximation Issues With Application to Vehicle Design Problems,” DE-Vol. 112 Advanced Vehicle Technologies, ASME.
Mastinu, G., 1995, “Integrated Controls and Interactive Multi-Objective Programming for the Improvement of Ride and Handling of Road Vehicles,” Smart Vehicles, Volume 1, Delft, NL.
Gobbi,  M., Mastinu,  G., and Doniselli,  C., 1999, “Optimizing a Car Chassis,” Vehicle System Dynamics, Sept., pp. 149–170.
Miano, C. M., Gobbi, M., and Mastinu, G., 2002, “Interactive Multiobjective Optimization Methods Related to the Design of Complex Mechanical System,” Internal Report, Politecnico di Milano.
Genta, G., 1997, Motor Vehicle Dynamics, World Scientific.
Gillespie, T., 1992, Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, Society of Automotive Eng.
ISO 7401, 1988, “Road Vehicles—Lateral Transient Response Test Methods,”
Pareto, V., 1906, Manuale di economia politica, Società Editrice Libraria, Milano.
Niederreiter, H., 1992, Random Number Generation and Quasi Montecarlo Methods, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA.
Tezuka, S., 1995, Uniform Random Numbers: Theory and Practice, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, MA.
Polak, E., 1997, Optimization, Algorithms and Consistent Approximations, Springer, New York.
An, J., and Owen, A., 1999, “Quasi-Regression,” Technical report, Stanford University, Dept. of Statistics.
Gobbi, M., 1998, “Design of Complex Mechanical Systems, Road Vehicles Related Examples (In Italian),” PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano.
Miano, C. M., 1998, “Optimization Methods of Complex Mechanical System With Particular Reference to Ground Vehicles (in Italian),” PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano.
Giunta, A., and Watson, L. T., 1998, “A Comparison of Approximation Modelling Techniques: Polynomial Versus Interpolating Models,” Seventh AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis & Optimization.
Gobbi, M., Mastinu, G., and Doniselli, C., 1997, “Advances in the Optimal Design of Vehicle Subsystems,” Proc. of the 6th EAEC Int. Conf. EAEC.
Barthelemy,  J., and Haftka,  R., 1993, “Approximation Concepts for Optimum Structural Design a Review,” Structural Optimization,5, pp. 129–144.
Gobbi, M., and Mastinu, G., 1999, “Global Approximation: Performance Comparison of Different Methods, With an Application to Road Vehicle System Engineering,” DE-Vol. 101 Innovations in Vehicle Design and Development, ASME.
Hajela, P., 2000, “Strategies for Modelling, Approximation, and Decomposition in Genetic Algorithms Based Multidisciplinary Design,” The Oswatitsch Session, Emerging Methods for Treating Mullidisciplinary Optimization Problems, Udine, CISM.
Hajela, P., 1996, “Neural Networks in Discrete Structural Optimization,” Technical report, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Shyy,  W., Papila,  N., Vaidyanathan,  R., and Tucker,  K., 2001, “Global Design Optimization for Aerodynamics and Rocket Propulsion Components,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 37, pp. 59–118.
You,  S. S., and Chai,  Y. H., 1999, “Multi-Objective Control Synthesis: An Application to 4ws Passenger Vehicles,” Mechatronics, 9, pp. 363–390.
You,  S. S., and Jeong,  S. K., 2002, “Controller Design and Analysis for Automatic Steering of Passenger Cars,” Mechatronics, 12, pp. 427–446.
Zahng, J. R., Xu, S. J., and Rachid, A., 2000, “Robust Sliding Mode Observer for Automatic Steering of Vehicles,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems, Volume 1, Dearborn, MI.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
(Left) Pareto-optimal set plotted in the design variables domain. Nonlinear vehicle model, μR=2.2 and μF=2.0.(v=35 m/s and δ=6°). The Pareto-optimal set is defined by symbols ‘+’. (Right) Trends of the objective functions (the arrows shows decreasing directions of the objective functions). Vehicle data are given in Appendix B.
Grahic Jump Location
Pareto-optimal set (gray area) in the design variable domain as a function of CαFlF/l and CαRlR/l. Data denoted by ‘○ ’ were derived from the literature 2424344, data denoted by ‘▵ ’ were available to the authors and measured from by a number of tire manufacturers (see Table 4).
Grahic Jump Location
Solution of the problem (47) ‘o’ for different values of the parameters εOβ and εT. Different values of these parameters determine the shape of the feasible domain of the problem (47). The union of points ‘o’ obtained for the problem (47) solved for different values (εOβT) allows to obtain the Pareto-optimal set of the problem considered.
Grahic Jump Location
Single track vehicle model
Grahic Jump Location
Lateral forces transmitted by the tires at front (F) and rear (R) axle as function of the lateral slip angle α
Grahic Jump Location
Phase plane plot, μFR. Vehicle running at v=25 m/s, a): δ=0°<δ̃ and b): δ=7°>δ̃(δ̃ is given by Eq. (23)). Stable equilibrium point ‘o’ is given by Eq. (8) and by Eq. (9). Stable equilibrium point ‘+’ is given by Eq. (24) and by Eq. (25). Vehicle data are reported in Appendix B.
Grahic Jump Location
Phase plane plot, μFR. Vehicle running at v=25 m/s, a): δ=0°<δ̃ and b): δ=7°>δ̃(δ̃ is given by Eq. (23)). Stable equilibrium point ‘o’ is given by Eq. (8) and by Eq. (9). Unstable equilibrium points ‘* ’ are given by Eq. (29) and by Eq. (30). Vehicle data are reported in Appendix B.
Grahic Jump Location
Peak response time, ψ̇max and ψ̇ss definition with reference to the yaw velocity response
Grahic Jump Location
Example of Pareto-optimal set boundary obtained in design variables domain for a multi-objective optimization problem with two design variables. □ is a Pareto-optimal solution taken from an initial approximated Pareto-optimal set. ○ are the solution found by applying the method presented in Sec. 2.2.
Grahic Jump Location
Pareto-optimal set plotted in the design variables domain. Linear vehicle model. The Pareto-optimal set is defined by symbol ‘+’. Boundaries have been computed analytically. Vehicle data are given in Appendix B. γ is defined by Eq. (46). The time responses for cases 〈1〉 to 〈7〉 are plotted in Fig. 10.
Grahic Jump Location
Time responses to a step steering angle input of cars (design solutions) denoted by numbers 〈1〉 to 〈7〉 in Fig. 9. The symbol • indicates the peak response time. The forward speed considered is v=30 m/s. The solution 〈1〉 has the best Tψ̇ and Kβ2 (see Table 3, min F1,F2), the solutions 〈3〉 and 〈4〉 have the best Oψ̇ (see Table 3min F3) and the solutions 〈1〉, 〈5〉, and 〈4〉 have the best ψ̈/δsteady(0) (see Table 3min F4).
Grahic Jump Location
Pareto-optimal set plotted in the design variables domain for the linear vehicle model as in Fig. 9. The arrows indicate decreasing values of each objective function, see Table 2. Vehicle data are given in Appendix B.
Grahic Jump Location
Influence of the vehicle speed on the Pareto-optimal set. Linear vehicle model as in Fig. 9, a): v=15 m/s, b): v=20 m/s, c): v=25 m/s and d): v=35 m/s. The Pareto-optimal set is defined by symbols ‘+’. Vehicle data are given in Appendix B.
Grahic Jump Location
Pareto-optimal set plotted in the design variable domain. Nonlinear vehicle model: μR=2.0 and μF=2.2. Influence of speed and of steering input angles, a): v=25 m/s, δ=6°, b): v=35 m/s, δ=4°, and c): v=35 m/s and δ=6°. The Pareto-optimal set is defined by symbols ‘+’. Vehicle data are given in Appendix B.
Grahic Jump Location
(Left) Pareto-optimal set plotted in the design variable domain. Nonlinear vehicle model, μR=2.2 and μF=2.0.(v=25 m/s and δ=6°). The Pareto-optimal set is defined by symbols ‘+’. (Right) Trends of the objective functions (the arrows shows decreasing directions of the objective functions). Vehicle data are given in Appendix B.
Grahic Jump Location
(Left) Pareto-optimal set plotted in the design variables domain. Nonlinear vehicle model, μR=2.2 and μF=2.0.(v=35 m/s and δ=4°). The Pareto-optimal set is defined by symbols ‘+’. (Right) Trends of the objective functions (the arrows shows decreasing directions of the objective functions). Vehicle data are given in Appendix B.
Grahic Jump Location
Lateral slip at front and at rear axles (αFR) as a function of sideslip body angle β and yaw velocity ψ̇

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In