SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

2002-01-0967

Influence of Active Chassis Systems on Vehicle Propensity to Maneuver-Induced Rollovers

Aleksander Hac
Delphi Automotive Systems

Reprinted From: Vehicle Dynamics and Simulation 2002 (SP1656)

SAE 2002 World Congress Detroit, Michigan March 4-7, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition, however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISSN 0148-7191 Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group. Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

2002-01-0967

Influence of Active Chassis Systems on Vehicle Propensity to Maneuver-Induced Rollovers

Aleksander Hac
Delphi Automotive Systems
Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate through simulations the effects of active chassis systems on vehicle propensity to rollover caused by aggressive handling maneuvers. A 16 degree-of-freedom computer model of a full vehicle is used for this purpose. It includes models of active chassis systems and the associated control algorithms, and allows for simulation of vehicle dynamic behavior under large roll angles. The controllable chassis systems considered in this investigation are active rear steer, brake based vehicle stability enhancement system and active anti-roll bar. The maneuvers used in simulation are the double lane change and the fishhook maneuvers with increasing steering amplitudes. The vehicle represents a midsize SUV with a marginal static stability factor of 1.09 and aggressive tires. The results of simulations demonstrate that the uncontrolled vehicle rolls over in both maneuvers when the steering angle is sufficiently large. Each active control system significantly increases rollover stability either the vehicle cannot be rolled over regardless of the magnitude of the steering angle, or the amplitude of the steering angle necessary to rollover the vehicle is markedly increased.

stability enhancement systems, active steer systems, or controllable suspensions. This is a very serious limitation as such systems become quite common. There are good reasons to believe, as well as significant body of evidence indicating that active chassis control systems markedly increase vehicle resistance to rollover. For example, Marine et al. (1999) have shown by analyzing vehicle behavior in a lane change maneuvers that a likelihood of two wheel lift off is increasing with increasing steering angle and vehicle yaw rate. Thus vehicle oversteer is an important factor contributing to rollover. Since brake based stability enhancement systems reduce vehicle tendency to oversteer and reduce lateral slip velocity of vehicle, they can be expected to reduce probability of rollover. This conjuncture was confirmed by a simulation study performed by Ungoren et al. (2001), in which SUVs were subjected to aggressive handling maneuvers. While the vehicle without the control system experienced two wheel lift off in several maneuvers, the vehicle with the brake based stability enhancement system turned on did not exhibit tipping tendencies in the same maneuvers and generally experienced lower roll angles. Meanwhile other systems are investigated or are under development, which specifically target the rollover prevention. For example, Palkovics et al. (1998) describe a system for commercial trucks, which detects when outside wheels are about to lift off during cornering by judicious application of brakes and throttle and observing wheel slip. The system then applies front brakes to reduce the lateral acceleration. A similar system was proposed by Wielenga (Wielenga, 1999; Wielenga and Chace, 2000), in which front brakes are applied when lateral acceleration of vehicle exceeds a threshold. Since lateral acceleration alone is a poor predictor of impending rollover (Marine et al., 1999), Eisele and Peng (2000) considered a control algorithm, in which brakes were applied when a linear combination of roll angle, roll rate and lateral acceleration exceeded a threshold. This anti-rollover feature was added to the existing vehicle stability control algorithm, which primarily controls vehicle motion in the yaw plane.

INTRODUCTION
With growing popularity among consumers of vehicles with high centers of gravity, evaluation of rollover propensity of these vehicles becomes an issue of increasing importance. Fundamentally, there exists two classes of tests designed to predict or evaluate vehicle tendency to rollover: static tests involving measurements of vehicle parameters (usually distances), which are related to vehicle rollover behavior, and dynamic tests in which vehicle is put through a set of severe handling maneuvers, which may induce two wheel lift off. Static tests usually provide a simple indicator, such as a static stability factor, tilt table ratio, side pull ratio or critical sliding velocity. In most cases these measures do not include the effects of suspension and tire compliance. Worst still, they do not incorporate any effects of electronically controlled chassis systems, such as

Ackerman at al. (1999) proposed a system in which the height of vehicle center of mass was estimated on line, and active steering and braking were applied when the lateral acceleration approached a threshold value derived from a static stability factor. With advent of these and other active rollover prevention systems, the static measures of rollover stability will become even less useful. Dynamic rollover testing typically consists of aggressive handling maneuvers, involving rapid steering and sometimes braking, performed on dry smooth surface (Garrot et al., 1999). In this type of tests, vehicle behavior is affected by many design variables not considered in the static tests, such as the effect of suspension and tires, and the influence of active chassis systems, which significantly affect vehicle behavior at the limit. However, dynamic rollover tests are dangerous and expensive. Thus only limited number of tests can realistically be performed and there is always a possibility that a vehicle, which performed well in a few tests, could roll over under slightly modified maneuver. In addition, it is difficult to achieve consistent results. The main reason is that the vehicle is on the verge of loosing stability, which by the very definition is a condition when small changes in the inputs, disturbances, vehicle parameters, or environment can result large changes in the output, that is the outcome of the test. Therefore there is a need to supplement the tests results with the results of simulation. Simulation can also be a useful tool in predicting rollover propensity of vehicle at a design stage. In this paper, the influence of three presently available controlled chassis systems on vehicle rollover resistance is investigated. The chassis systems considered in this study are the active rear steer (ARS), the brake based vehicle stability enhancement (VSE) system and the active roll bar, referred to as dynamic body control (DBC) system. The main purpose of the first two systems is to improve vehicle yaw response, that is the balance between responsiveness and stability in the yaw plane. The DBC system is primarily used to improve the balance of ride and handling, in particular to reduce vehicle body roll during cornering maneuvers. The control algorithms considered here do not include any measures specifically targeting rollover prevention. The vehicle responses to a double lane change and Fishhook steering inputs are simulated for a passive vehicle and vehicles equipped with each one of the active chassis systems. The maneuvers are repeated with increasing amplitude of steering angle until either the vehicle rolls over or the maximum steering angle is reached. The vehicle parameters represent a midsize SUV with all independent suspension and a static stability factor of 1.09. The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, the vehicle model used in simulations is briefly described. The fundamental control objectives are then

explained for each system. Subsequently, the results of simulations are presented followed by conclusions.

VEHICLE MODEL
The vehicle model used in this study was developed as a tool for testing of active chassis control systems at the development stage, as well as for hardware in the loop simulations. The model has a total of 16 degrees of freedom, excluding the dynamics of subsystems. Vehicle body is modeled as a rigid body, which can perform three translations and three rotations. In the case of all independent suspensions each wheel has two degrees of freedom: rotation about the lateral axis and vertical translation. In the case of a rigid axle, the axle has two degrees of freedom, corresponding to axis roll and heave. In addition, both front and rear wheels can be steered. There are two types of inputs to the model: driver inputs, such as steering wheel angle, brake pedal force and throttle position, and environmental inputs, such as road displacement under each wheel, road inclination angles, and surface coefficient of adhesion between each tire and the road. The model features simplified models of brake, powertrain and steering systems, which relate driver brake, throttle and steering inputs to wheel torques and front steering angle. The brake system model includes master cylinder, modulator, calipers and hydraulic circuit. It determines brake torque applied to each wheel from the brake pedal force. The brake model includes ABS and TCS functions in simplified forms. The powertrain model includes a model of an automatic transmission. It uses a map of engine torque and gear shift pattern and takes into account inertia of the engine and the drivertrain to determine the driving torque on the driven wheels. The model of the front steer system relates the steering wheel angle to the front wheel angle. A simple model of the actuator for active rear steer is also included. The model also includes simplified versions of vehicle stability enhancement, active rear steer and active roll bars algorithms. The tire model used here is a parametric model, which can be considered a modification of Duggoffs model (Bernard et al., 1977, Wong, 1993). It includes the effects of tire normal load on tire longitudinal and lateral stiffness coefficients and on the surface coefficient of adhesion. In addition, the surface coefficient of adhesion is a function of the velocity of sliding of the wheel with respect to the road. The effect of dynamic delay in building the lateral tire force is modeled by a first order filter, whose time constant depends on vehicle speed and relaxation length of the tire. The model has been validated against vehicle test data. The model has a number of features, which make it suitable for simulating vehicle rollover maneuvers up to about 45 degrees of roll angle measured with respect to road surface. Specifically,

1. The model does not use a small roll angle assumption. This requires additional transformation of variables between the vehicle body fixed reference frame and the frame attached to the road surface, as well as modification of equations of motion when two wheels lift off the ground. 2. The effects of suspension jacking forces are included. These are vertical components of the forces in lateral links of suspension. These links are usually not parallel to the ground, so that during cornering the forces acting along these links have vertical components, which do not cancel out. As a result, they have a tendency to lift vehicle center of gravity during hard cornering. 3. Nonlinerities in suspension stiffness characteristics, including the bushings, and in damping characteristics are modeled using look up tables. The nonlinearities in suspension stiffness characteristics are important in modeling rollover events, since suspension stiffness characteristics are usually progressive. Consequently during cornering maneuvers compression of outside suspension is less than the extension of the inside suspension, which causes upward shift of vehicle center of gravity. The effect of suspension nonlinearities is particularly significant when vehicle is fully loaded, since in this case the outside suspension can be fully compressed during heavy cornering. This generates high jacking forces, which lift the body up. Concurrently, the normal tire forces increase, which may increase lateral forces and lateral acceleration. 4. The model includes the effect of change in vehicle half-track width during cornering resulting from lateral deformation of tires, suspension kinematics and lateral compliance of suspension. The reduction in vehicle half-track width under dynamic conditions, combined with increase of vehicle center of gravity height due to jacking effects of suspension affects rollover stability. 5. The model permits simulation of vehicle response with payloads, as long as the mass, location and inertial properties of payload are known. The model determines the static suspension deflections and calculates the variables of interest with respect to the new operating point, while maintaining proper limits on suspension deflections. This is important for proper modeling of bottoming out of suspension as discussed above. 6. The tire model includes the dependency of tire longitudinal and lateral stiffness coefficients and the surface coefficient of adhesion on the normal load. The character of these relationships has a dramatic influence on the rollover dynamics, because at the rollover threshold the normal forces of the outside tires are about double their static values. In addition, the effect of tire camber angle on tire forces is described through extrapolation of existing models, since the data for very large camber angles is not readily available for automotive tires.

ACTIVE CHASSIS CONTROL SYSTEMS

The active chassis systems considered in this paper are the brake based vehicle stability enhancement system, active rear steer system, and active roll bar. In what follows we provide a brief description of their basic functions. More detailed descriptions can be found in the references cited below. VEHICLE STABILITY ENHANCEMENT (VSE) systems are active safety systems that control the response of vehicle to steering inputs at or near the limit of adhesion by selectively applying brakes to individual wheels independently of the driver. The main objective of control is to make the vehicle more predictable and easier to control by the driver in emergency maneuvers by reducing the difference between the vehicle behavior at the limit and in the linear range of handling behavior. This is accomplished by correcting excessive oversteer or understeer through selective application of brakes to one or more wheels. In order to perform these tasks the system must have means to determine the desired response of vehicle, compare it with measured or estimated response and, if a sufficient discrepancy between the two is detected, apply corrective action.

Figure1. Functional Diagram of Vehicle Stability Enhancement System A typical control system consists of the following building blocks, illustrated in Figure 1. 1) Sensors, which measure driver inputs and vehicle response. The measured driver inputs typically include steering angle, brake pedal force and throttle position. The vehicle response is measured in terms of lateral acceleration, yaw rate and wheel speeds, from which vehicle reference speed is derived. There are usually additional sensors within brake and powertrain subsystems. 2) Vehicle reference model, which generates the desired vehicle response in terms of the desired yaw rate and the desired side slip angle or side slip rate, using primarily driver inputs and vehicle reference speed.

3) Estimation block, which provides estimates of vehicle reference speed, the surface coefficient of adhesion and usually vehicle side slip angle and side slip rate. Other estimation functions may be performed by subsystems, for example estimation of driving torque at the driven wheels. 4) Vehicle level control block, which compares the desired values of yaw rate and usually side slip angle with the measured or estimated values and calculates the necessary correction. The correction is typically expressed in terms of corrective yaw moment applied to the vehicle, or desired wheel slip correction. To generate these signals, closed loop control of yaw rate and usually side slip angle or side slip rate is used. 5) System level controllers, which include powertrain controller and brake modulator. They employ local control loops to achieve the target values of wheel slips or wheel torques as determined by the vehicle level controller. More detailed descriptions of the vehicle stability enhancement systems can be found in van Zanten et al. (1995) or Hac (1998). An excellent coverage of issues involved in estimation of sides slip angle is provided by Nishio et al. (2001). What is important from the viewpoint of rollover resistance, is that the stability enhancement algorithms control vehicle response in the yaw plane and specifically vehicle yaw rate and slip angle or slip rate. They do not include any explicit considerations of vehicle roll angle. Nevertheless, by limiting the vehicle side slip angle and therefore lateral velocity, they make it less likely for a vehicle to roll over either with or without tripping mechanism. In a tripped rollover a minimum sliding velocity (about 6 m/s for a typical SUV) is required to trip the vehicle and tip it over. During untripped rollover, maximum lateral forces on both outside tires are needed to generate peak lateral acceleration necessary to initiate rollover. The maximum lateral forces are achieved on dry surface at large tire side slip angles, typically in the range of 10-20 degrees. Such large sideslip angles cannot be achieved at the rear axle without a large vehicle side slip angle (oversteer). This can be confirmed by analyzing the rollover data provided by Marine et al. (1999), which shows that in maneuvers with two wheel lift off the magnitudes of yaw rate were significantly larger than in the maneuvers in which vehicle remained stable, while the peak lateral accelerations remained roughly the same. It must be concluded that in the maneuvers with rollover stability problem, vehicle typically experienced heavy oversteer with large side slip angles, even though the side slip angles were not recorded. ACTIVE REAR STEER (ARS) is another type of active chassis control system, which limits vehicle oversteer and improves handling. The main objectives of this system are to enhance vehicle maneuverability at low

speeds, improve stability at high speeds and improve vehicle transient response to steering inputs. The first objective is achieved by steering the rear wheels out of phase with the front at low speeds, since this reduces the radius of turns. Improving stability requires limiting vehicle tendency to oversteer. Vehicle oversteer, followed by a loss of control, is often caused by a rapid change in sign of the steering angle at high speeds. This causes a quick change in the direction of the lateral force of the front axle, while the rear axle force, which lags the front, still acts in the opposite direction. During transient, both lateral forces, which are opposite in signs, generate a large yaw moment, which begins to rotate the vehicle more rapidly than driver intends, eventually leading to oversteer and possibly spin out. In order to advance the phase of rear lateral force to match closer that of the front axle, the rear wheels must be steered in phase with the front ones. This makes the vehicle more stable in quick evasive maneuvers, since vehicle yaw rate and its rate of change are reduced. It is known that in emergency lane change maneuvers both objective task performance measures and drivers subjective ratings of handling quality improve when the phase lags between the steering angle input and lateral acceleration and yaw rate responses are kept small. In addition, it is desirable to keep the lags in lateral acceleration and yaw rate approximately equal throughout the entire range of speeds. The lateral acceleration and yaw rate are related via the following kinematic expression (1) where ay is lateral acceleration, is yaw rate, vx and vy are longitudinal and lateral velocities, respectively. Thus both ay and are in phase when the derivative of lateral velocity is kept low, which can be approximately achieved by keeping the lateral velocity small. It is easy to show (Furukawa et al., 1989) that for a simplified bicycle handling model, the steady state value of lateral velocity can be brought to zero over the entire speed range if the rear wheels are steered in proportion to the front wheels, that is (2) r = K ff (v x ) f where f and r are and the front and rear steering angles, respectively, and the feedforward gain, Kff, is the following function of velocity: Ma 2 b+ vx Cr l K ff 0 = (3) Mb 2 a+ vx Cfl Here a and b denote the distances of vehicle center of mass from front and rear axles, respectively, l=a+b is vehicle wheelbase, M is total vehicle mass, Cf and Cr are the cornering stiffness coefficients of front and rear axles, respectively. The above gain as a function of vehicle speed is illustrated in Figure 2 for a midsize SUV.

Figure 2.Feedforward Gain for Active Rear Steer System The gain is negative at low speeds and positive at high speeds, which is consistent with the requirements of vehicle maneuverability at low speeds and stability at high speeds The gain computed from equation (3) calls for a large steering angle at the rear wheels at low speeds when the front wheels are steered sharply. It also yields very low, often subjectively objectionable, yaw rates in quick transients maneuvers performed at high speeds. In practice therefore the gain is scaled down, with the precise shape determined by vehicle tuning. Feedforward control of the rear steering angle according to equation (2) appears to be the most commonly used. In addition, a feedback control loop can be employed, as described by Fujita et al. (1998). In this study only a feedforward control of rear steering angle is assumed, with the gain being a scaled down version of that given by equation (3) with the scale factor of 0.4. Similarly to the VSE system, the active rear steer system does not specifically target vehicle rollover, but an improvement in rollover resistance is expected as a byproduct of limiting vehicle tendency to oversteer, which is a precondition of most rollovers. DYNAMIC BODY CONTROL. The third type of active chassis system considered in this paper is an active body roll control system, which is here referred to as dynamic body control (DBC). This type of system is particularly beneficial for SUVs. Design of passive suspensions for this type of vehicle poses significant challenges because of wide spectrum of conditions under which vehicle operates. During off road use vehicle may be subjected to large ground inputs, usually of low frequency. This calls for large ground clearance and large axle articulation to maintain traction in these conditions, thus requiring also large suspension travel. At the same time, the vehicle must achieve acceptable handling and ride characteristics during operation on paved roads. This leads to design compromises, often resulting in large body roll angles during cornering maneuvers. The purpose of dynamic body control is to improve these trade-offs. The main design goals are to maintain or improve axle articulation over uneven terrain, to improve ride quality during road use and to reduce body roll angle during cornering.

Figure 3. Active Roll Bars with Linear and Rotary Actuators In the dynamic body control system, linear or rotary hydraulic actuators act on conventional roll bars to provide forces that resist vehicle roll, as shown in Figure 3. The actuators are controlled by two-way valves, which determine the chamber of the actuator to which the hydraulic pressure generated by a pump is supplied. During normal, straight line driving the actuators are not pressurized, so that left and right roll bar assemblies can rotate relatively freely with respect to each other, without generating a significant roll resisting moment. This improves vehicle response to road inputs on one side of vehicle. During cornering, pressurized fluid is supplied to properly selected chambers of the actuator, creating a torsional moment in the roll bar that opposes the roll motion of vehicle body. The control algorithm uses measured lateral acceleration of vehicle to determine the desired pressure in the chambers of front and rear actuator (Everett et al., 2000). Depending on the particular system hardware, sensors, and control algorithm, the roll resisting moment may be divided between front and rear axle in constant or varied proportions. In more advanced systems, the proportions of the roll moment can be varied in real time as a function of vehicle yaw response (measured by sensor) relative to the desired yaw rate (Everett et al., 2000). In this study a simpler system responsive to lateral acceleration and with fixed roll moment distribution is considered. Practical DBC systems operate under a number of constraints of which the limits on the power of the system (limited by the power of the hydraulic pump) and the maximum torque (limited by the size of actuators and hydraulic pressure) are the most important from the viewpoint of this study. Due to the limit on the magnitude of torque, the vehicle body experiences some roll during steady-state cornering with large lateral acceleration, which is considered desirable by virtue of providing additional feedback to the driver. The limit of the power

supplied influences vehicle response in quick transient maneuvers, when sudden changes in the magnitude and/or direction of the lateral acceleration result in fast roll rates and large power demand to reduce roll angle. Both of these limitations influence vehicle propensity to maneuver-induced rollovers.

RESULTS OF SIMULATIONS
In order to evaluate the effects of active chassis systems on vehicle tendency to rollover during emergency handling maneuvers, a series of simulations were conducted. The vehicle parameter data used in this study represents a midsize SUV with all independent suspension and a static stability factor of 1.09. The selected maneuvers discussed here are the double lane change maneuver and the fishhook maneuver with the initial speed of 30 m/s (67 mph). The steering patterns for both maneuvers are illustrated in Figure 4. Each of these maneuvers can lead to heavy oversteer, which is a contributing factor in rollovers. All simulated maneuvers were performed as open loop steering control maneuvers, without any driver model representing drivers reaction to vehicle response. Each of the maneuvers was repeated a number of times with the same speed of entry, and the same steering pattern, but with increasing amplitude A of the steering angle. As the amplitude increased, the vehicle eventually either rolled over, or the maximum steering angle of 540 degrees was reached. The rate of change of the steering angle was limited to 1000 deg/s, which approximately corresponds to the maximum rate that can be generated by human drivers.

Figure 5. Maximum Steering Angle Amplitudes without Rollover for Double Lane Change Maneuver The results of simulations performed for the double lane change maneuver are summarized in Figure 5. It shows the maximum amplitudes of the steering angle for each vehicle, for which the maneuver could be performed without rolling over. The vehicles considered are a passive vehicle with no active control systems, the same vehicle with vehicle stability enhancement system (VSE), with active rear steer system (ARS), with dynamic body control (DBC) system, with both VSE and ARS, and finally with both VSE and DBC systems. The maximum steering angle amplitude that can be reached without inducing rollover for the passive vehicle is 180 degrees, but at that steering angle vehicle developed a very large side slip angle, just over 50 degrees. For the vehicle with VSE, the maximum steering amplitude of 300 degrees could be achieved without rollover, for the vehicle with ARS the steering amplitude at the rollover threshold was 240 degrees, and for vehicle with DBC it was 200 degrees. The vehicles with two active systems, either VSE and ARS or VSE and DBC, did not rollover regardless of the amplitude of the steering angle. The vehicle with VSE and ARS also exhibited the smallest side slip angle. As an example, the results obtained for the vehicle without control and with VSE system are illustrated in Figure 6 for the amplitude of the steering angle of 270 degrees. The passive vehicle experiences extreme oversteer in the second turn and rolls over; the simulation is terminated when the roll angle reaches 1 radian (57.3 degrees). The vehicle with VSE system develops smaller peak lateral acceleration and remains stable, but the peak roll angle is quite large (11.3 degrees) and the vehicle experiences a very brief two wheel lift off. Note also that the vehicle side slip angle is rather large, reaching a maximum of 11 degrees. It is possible that a more aggressive control of side slip angle in this vehicle would also reduce vehicle tendency to tip off. None of the control algorithms used here were finetuned for the particular vehicle used in simulations, so it

Figure 4. Steering Patterns for a Double Lane Change and Fishhook Maneuver

is possible that the performance could be further improved.

The vehicle with ARS displays much higher side slip angle than the vehicle equipped with VSE; it also has significantly higher peak lateral acceleration and roll angle.

Figure 6. Vehicle Response in Double Lane Change Maneuver at Steering Amplitude of 270 Degrees without Control and with VSE The results obtained for the fishhook maneuver are illustrated in Figure 7 in terms of the maximum amplitude of steering angle, which can be applied without causing rollover. Note that according to the definition of the amplitude A for the fishhook maneuver (Figure 4), the maximum steering angle is actually 2A. Thus the angle of 270 degrees indicates that the vehicle cannot be rolled over in this maneuver. The maximum steering angle amplitude for the passive vehicle was 40 degrees and for the vehicle with DBC it was 55 degrees. All the remaining vehicles were able to negotiate this maneuver without rolling over regardless of the magnitude of the steering angle. The vehicle with VSE system, however, was more stable than the one with ARS. It exhibited consistently smaller vehicle side slip angles and no wheel lift off, while the vehicle with ARS occasionally experienced one or two wheel lift off.

Figure 8. Vehicle Response in Fishhook Maneuver at Steering Amplitude of 120 degrees with VSE and with ARS In Figure 9 the results obtained for vehicles with VSE and DBC systems are compared for the steering angle amplitude of 55 degrees. At steady state, vehicle with DBC system experiences much smaller roll angle, about half of that for vehicle with VSE. However, during rapid reversal of steering angle and lateral acceleration, the hydraulic DBC system cannot keep up with the quick change in roll angle and the roll angle exhibits a significant overshoot. For larger steering angle this yields to rollover of vehicle. The quickness of response of DBC system is limited primarily by the power of the pump, which in this study was set to 2 kW. Resistance to maneuver induced rollovers of vehicle with DBC system can be significantly increased if this design constraint is relaxed, e.g. by increasing the size of the pump or by including an accumulator or another energy storage device.

Figure 7. Maximum Steering Angle Amplitudes without Rollover for Fishhook Maneuver The results in the case of the steering angle amplitude of 120 degrees for both systems are illustrated in Figure 8. Figure 9. Vehicle Response in a Fishhook Maneuver at the Steering Amplitude of 55 Degrees with VSE and DBC Systems

In the case of fishhook maneuver, further simulations were conducted, in which the height of the center of gravity of the controlled vehicle was progressively raised, until the vehicle started to roll over at the same steering angle amplitude as the passive vehicle. It was found that presence of active brake control brings about improvement in vehicle resistance to maneuver-induced rollovers that is equivalent to increase in the static stability factor by 12%.

7.

8.

CONCLUSION
9. In this paper effectiveness of active chassis systems in preventing maneuver induced rollovers on smooth roads was evaluated through numerical simulations. The systems considered were brake based VSE system ARS system and DBC system. All three systems improved vehicle resistance to rollovers, but DBC system was the least effective primarily due to insufficient speed of response limited by the power of hydraulic pump. In all cases the steering angle necessary to roll over the vehicle equipped with one or two of the active chassis systems had to be significantly increased as compared to the passive vehicle, or the rollover could be avoided altogether regardless of the steering angle. The VSE system improved vehicle stability more than the ARS system did, and the vehicle with both of these control systems was the most stable of all, showing no tendency to rollover and very small side slip angles. It was found that presence of active brake control brings about improvement in vehicle resistance to maneuver-induced rollovers that is equivalent to increase in static stability factor by about 12%.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

REFERENCES
16. 1. Ackerman, J., Bunte, T., and Odenthal, D., 1999, Advantages of Active Steering for Vehicle Dynamics Control, Proceedings of 32nd ISATA, Automotive Mechatronics Design and Engineering, Vienna, pp. 263-270. 2. Bernard, J. L. , Segel, L., and Wild, R. E., 1977, The Shear Force Generation During Combined Steering and Braking Maneuvers, SAE paper No. 770852. 3. Eisele, D. D. and Peng, H., 2000, Vehicle Dynamics Control with Rollover Prevention for Articulated Heavy Tracks, Proceedings of AVEC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000. 4. Everett, N. R., Brown, M. D., Crolla D. A., 2000, Investigation of a Roll Control System for an Offroad Vehicle, SAE paper No. 2000-01-1646. 5. Fujita, K., Ohashi, K., Fukatani, Kamai, S., Kagawa, Y., and Mori, H., 1998, Devolepment of Active Rear Steer System Applying H - Synthesis, SAE paper No. 981115. 6. Furukava, Y., Yuhara, N., Sano, S., Takeda, H., Matsushita, Y., 1989, A Review of Four Wheel Steering from Viewpoint of Vehicle Dynamics

Control, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 18, pp. 151-186. Garrott, W. R., Howe, J. G. and Forkenbrock, G., 1999, An Experimental Examination of Selected Maneuvers that May Induce On-Road Untripped, Light Vehicle Rollover Phase II of NHTSAs 19971998 Vehicle Rollover Research Program Hac, A., Evaluation of Two Concepts in Vehicle Stability Enhancement Systems, 1998, Proceedings of 31st ISATA, Automotive Mechatronics Design and Engineering, Vienna, pp. 205-212. Marine, M. C., Wirth, J. L. and Thomas, T. M., 1999, Characteristics of On-Road Rollovers, SAE paper No. 1999-01-0122. Nishio, A., Tozu, K., Yamaguchi, H., Asano, K., Amano, Y., 2001, Development of Vehicle Stability Control System Based on Vehicle Sideslip Angle Estimation, SAE paper No. 2001-01-0137. Palkovics, L., Semsey, A., Gerum, E., 1998, RollOver Prevention System for Commercial Vehicles Additional Sensorless Function of the Electronic Brake System, Proceedings of AVEC, 1998. Ungoren, A. Y., Peng, H. and Milot, D. R., 2001, Rollover Propensity Evaluation of an SUV Equipped with a TRW VSC System, SAE paper No. 2001-010128. Van Zanten, A. T., Erhardt, R., and Pfaff, G., 1995, VDC, The Vehicle Dynamics Control System by Bosch, SAE paper 950759. Wielenga, T. J., 1999, A Method for Reducing OnRoad Rollovers Anti-Rollover Braking, SAE paper No. 1999-01-0123. Wielenga, T. J. and Chase, M. A., 2000, A Study in Rollover Prevention Using Anti-Rollover Braking, SAE paper No. 2000-01-1642. Wong, J., Y., 1993, Theory of Ground Vehicles, John Wiley Inc., New York.