Hindawi

Shock and Vibration

Volume 2021, Article ID 5893993, 18 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5893993

Research Article
Conflict and Sensitivity Analysis of Articulated Vehicle Lateral
Stability Based on Single-Track Model

Dengzhi Peng ,1,2 Kekui Fang,3 Jianjie Kuang,1,2 Mohamed A. Hassan,1,2,4

and Gangfeng Tan 1,2,5
1
Hubei Key Laboratory of Advanced Technology for Automotive Components, Wuhan University of Technology,
Wuhan 430070, China
2
School of Automotive Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China
3
Hubei Center for Quality Inspection of Special Purpose Vehicles, Suizhou 441300, China
4
Automotive and Tractors Engineering Department, Minia University, El-Minia 61519, Egypt
5
Suizhou-WUT Industry Research Institute, Suizhou 441300, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Gangfeng Tan; [email protected]

Received 26 July 2021; Accepted 18 November 2021; Published 31 December 2021

Academic Editor: Antonio Batista

Copyright © 2021 Dengzhi Peng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Lateral stability is quite essential for the vehicle. For the vehicle with an articulated steering system, the vehicle load and steering system
performance is quite different from the passenger car with the Ackman steering system. To investigate the influence of the tire
characteristics and vehicle parameters on lateral stability, a single-track dynamic model is established based on the vehicle dynamic theory.
The accuracy of the built model is validated by the field test result. The investigated parameters include the tire cornering stiffness, vehicle
load, wheelbase, and speed. Based on the snaking steering maneuver, the lateral stability criteria including the yaw rate, vehicle sideslip
angle, tire sideslip angle, and lateral force are calculated and compared. The sensitivity analysis of the tire and vehicle parameters on the
lateral stability indicators is initiated. The results demonstrated that the parameters that affect the lateral vehicle stability the most are the
load on the rear part and the tire cornering stiffness. The findings also lay a foundation for the optimization of the vehicle’s lateral stability.

1. Introduction According to the current literature, the accuracy of the

simplified 2 or 3 DOFs; model is validated [6]. To analyze the
The articulated vehicle is widely used in engineering vehicles influence of tire and vehicle parameters on the vehicle lateral
due to its high mobility and low steering radius [1]. The stability, the 2 or 3 DOFs’ model is used in the regular vehicle
disadvantage of the articulated vehicle is the lack of lateral area. For example, Hassan et al. use a two-state linear bicycle
stability. Thus, it is necessary to investigate the key pa- model to accomplish the conflict and sensitivity analysis of
rameters that affect lateral stability during the maneuvers. vehicular stability of a passenger car [7].
Some researchers use the active brake system and torque As the assembly that transfers the shock and vibration
distribution system based on control algorithms to improve from the road surface to the vehicle, the tire characteristics
vehicle stability. The PID (proportional integral derivative), play a significant role in vehicle stability. The cornering
fuzzy control [2], LQR (linear quadratic regulator) [3], MPC stiffness is taken as the indicator to describe the correlation
(model predictive control) [4], and NMPC (nonlinear model between the sideslip angle and lateral force of the tire.
predictive control) [5] are initiated in this area. Since the Therefore, cornering stiffness contributes effectively to the
vehicle is a complicated dynamic system with multiple DOFs lateral direction stability. A bicycle model is established to
(degrees of freedom), these control algorithms are based on illustrate the influence of tire characteristics on the handling
the simplified control model and validated by the models stability trends under normal and extreme maneuvering
with 8, 10, or 14 DOFs. The control model is usually with 2 or conditions [8]. The simulation results show that the tire
3 DOFs based on the focus of the researchers. cornering stiffness is a dominant factor in vehicle lateral
2 Shock and Vibration

stability [9, 10]. The impact of the partial/full tire tread vehicle characteristics based on their focus. In the vehicular
separations on handling performance is conducted with a lateral stability area, the single-track vehicle system is widely
wide range of speeds and different maneuvers. The findings used to analyze vehicle performances. For a single-track
show that the dynamic response of the vehicle depends on model, the left and right wheels on the same axle are as-
the tread separation and the vehicle speed, as well as the sumed to have the same characteristics. Thus, a four-wheel
location of the separation event [11, 12]. Besides, according vehicle can be simplified as a single-track model with two
to the works of Deng et al., nonpneumatic tires with large wheels. The roll motion, pitch motion, and longitudinal tire
cornering stiffness have been proposed, which have great slip are also neglected in this model. The typical single-track
potential in improving the lateral stability of the vehicle model for a regular vehicle has 2 or 3 DOFs. For the 2 DOFs’
[13, 14]. model, the lateral motion and yaw motion are the concern of
To investigate the influence of the vehicle parameters on the researchers; for the 3 DOFs’ model, the longitudinal
the vehicle lateral stability, Wade et al. initiate an analysis to motion is added based on the 2 DOFs’ model [23]. For the
investigate the correlation of roll/yaw moment of inertia and vehicle with an articulated steering system, the 2 DOFs’
CG (Center of gravity) height with vehicle geometry pa- model has the same definition as the regular vehicle model.
rameters such as weight, length, width, and height [15]. The In this model, the articulated angle is taken as a constant
results show that vehicle performance is strongly affected by value during the steering process [24]. For the 3 DOFs’
vehicle dimension parameters. Li et al. use a scale wheel model, it has the degree of lateral motion and yaw motion of
loader to validate the established 7 DOFs’ dynamic model the front and rear parts of the articulated vehicle [25].
and analyse the vehicle stability [16]. The nonlinear single- Figure 1 illustrates the single-track model of the articulated
track model with a simplified piece—with linear tire vehicle.
model—is built to analyze the effect of load transfer on the In Figure 1, m1 and m2 represent the mass of the front
vehicle performance [17]. The model is validated by the and rear part of the vehicle, Lf1 and Lr1 are the distance
simulation result of CarSim. Whitehead et al. evaluate the between the front mass center to the front axle and the rear
influence of the CG location in both longitudinal and mass center to the rear axle, Lf2 and Lr2 are the distance
vertical directions on the vehicle rollover performance based from the articulated point to the front and rear mass centers,
on a simplified 3DOFs’ model [18]. For the electrical ve- ωf and ωr are the yaw rate of the front and rear part of the
hicles, the chassis layout is more flexible than the vehicle vehicle, and v1 and v2 are the velocity of the front and rear
with ICE (internal combustion engine), and the battery pack part of the vehicle.
is a heavy assembly. Thus, researches have been done to The lateral motion of the vehicle and yaw motion of the
investigate the CG position and payload of the battery pack front and rear parts of the vehicle can be expressed by the
on the vehicle dynamic performance [19]. following equations:
The effect of the wheelbase variation on the steering
stability, yaw rate gain, and steering error is analyzed by m1 v_y1 + m2 v_y2 � Fyf + Fyr , (1)
Wang et al. via numerical simulation [20]. Based on the
2
result, a six-wheel vehicle with a variable wheelbase is 􏼐Izf + m1 Lf2 􏼑ω_ f � T − Fyf 􏼐Lf1 + Lf2 􏼑, (2)
designed to enhance the lateral antidisturbance capability of
the vehicle [21]. 2
􏼐Izr + m2 Lr2 􏼑ω_ r � −T + Fyr Lr1 + Lr2 􏼁. (3)
Most of the current works focus on the passenger vehicle
with the Ackman steering system [22]. Researchers have In (1), the lateral accelerations of the front part, v_y1 , and
conducted studies to analyze the effect of the vehicle pa- rear part, v_y2 , are caused by the lateral tire forces of the front,
rameters, including the vehicle inertial properties on the Fyf , and rear axle, Fyr . The tire forces can be gained by
lateral stability and the sensitivity to each parameter; others
only focus on the influences of the tire characteristics on the ⎨ Fyf � −kf αf ,
⎧
⎩ F � −k α . (4)
lateral dynamics. The gross vehicle mass of the passenger car yr r r
is much lower than the typical engineering vehicle with an
articulated steering system. To investigate the characteristic In the above equation, αf and αr are the sideslip angles of
of the vehicle with an articulated steering system, the the front and rear tire. To obtain them, the relationship of the
parametrical conflict analysis is introduced to evaluate the vehicle velocity, v1 , front tire velocity, vf , and rear tire
vehicle’s lateral stability in terms of the lateral acceleration, velocity, vr , is established according to
yaw rate, vehicle sideslip angle, lateral force, and sideslip ⎧ v1 cos β � vf cos αf ,
⎨
angles of the tires. The parametrical conflict analysis includes ⎩ v sin α � L ω + v sin β. (5)
the tire cornering stiffness, vehicle payload, wheelbase, and f f f1 1 1
speed. This paper tends to define the conflict and trade-off
between the vehicle parameters and lateral stability. v1 cos β � vr cos θ − αr 􏼁,
􏼨 (6)
vr sin θ − αr 􏼁 � Lrf ω1 − v1 sin β,
2. 3 DOFs’ Single-Track Model
where Lrf � Lf2 + Lr1 + Lr2 and β means the vehicle sideslip
The vehicle is a complicated system with multiple DOFs. angle. When the articulation angle θ is within the range of
Researchers usually use simplified models to analyze the ±15 degrees, 0.98|tan θ| ≤ |θ| is essential. Therefore,
Shock and Vibration 3

y of the vehicle and measured yaw rate in the field test are
ωr ωf
compared in Figure 5.
Fxr αr v2 T v1 The MAPE (maximum absolute percentage error) and
m2 αf RMSE (root mean square error) of the simulated value based
vr
θ O m1 x on the measured value are calculated to validate the accuracy
Fyr Lr1 Fxf vf
Lr2 Fyf of the established model. The values of MAPE and RMSE are
Lf2 Lf1
1.35% and 0.42°/s, respectively. The simulation results ob-
Figure 1: Single-track model of an articulated vehicle. tained in the built single-track model are in considerable
agreement with those obtained in the current research
[29–32]. Thus, the established model can be used in further
tan θ ≈ θ is used to simplify the equations. Thus, based on analysis.
(5) and (6), the sideslip angle of the tires can be acquired by Based on the validated single-track model, the input
velocity during the following simulation is changed into a
⎪
⎧ Lf1 ω1
⎪
⎪ αf � β + , constant value of 15 km/h to eliminate the effect of velocity
⎪
⎪ v1x
⎪
⎨ variation in the time domain. The lateral acceleration, yaw
⎪ (7) rate of the front and rear parts of the vehicle, vehicle sideslip
⎪
⎪ angle, and tire sideslip angle are taken as the indicators to
⎪
⎪ Lrf ω1
⎪
⎩ αr � β − + θ. evaluate the vehicle performance. To evaluate more signals
v1x
in the time domain more intuitively, the peak value and RMS
The torque generated by the liquid steering system is (root mean square) of these signals are calculated and
calculated by [26] compared in the following analysis.
T � −Kl θ, (8)
3.2. Impact of the Cornering Stiffness Coefficient.
where Kl is the equivalent torsional stiffness of the steering According to the work of Long and Chen [33] and Qi et al.
system, which can be obtained by [27] [34], tire characteristics are crucial in terms of vehicle
2βe handling performance. The cornering stiffness of the tire can
2
Kl � A + A2 􏼁 h2o , (9) be adjusted to satisfy the requirement of the vehicle [35]. In
Ve 1
the single-track model, the cornering stiffness coefficient is
where βe is the comprehensive elastic modulus considering used to describe the behavior of the tire. To evaluate the
the oil and pipe of the steering system, Ve is the mean effect of the cornering stiffness on both stability and han-
volume of the cavities with and without the rod when the dling performance, three cases are proposed for simulation.
articulation angle is 0 degree, A1 and A2 are the areas of Case A: the cornering stiffness of the front tire is varied
cavity cross section with and without rod, respectively, and by ±30% based on the current value, while the rear tire
ho is the arm of the force of the steering rod when the cornering stiffness stays the same.
articulation angle is 0 degree.
Case B: the cornering stiffness of the rear tire is varied
Based on the equations mentioned above, the 3 DOFs’
by ±30% based on the current value, while the front tire
model of the vehicle with an articulated steering system can
cornering stiffness stays the same.
be established by Matlab/Simulink.
Case C: the cornering stiffness of the rear tire varies
from -30% to 30% based on the current value, while the
3. Simulation and Discussion rear tire cornering stiffness decreases from 30% to
-30%.
The single-track model can be used to evaluate parametrical
conflict and sensitivity of the vehicle handling stability [27]. The lateral stability of the three cases is shown in
The established model is validated before the parametrical Figures 6–8.
conflict and sensitivity analysis. Figure 6 shows the vehicle performance as the changing
of the front tire cornering stiffness. The RMS value of the
indicators is shown on the left axis while the peak value is
3.1. Simulation Validation. The vehicle parameter is gained shown on the right axis. The RMS and peak value of tire
from the research of Gao et al. [3] and Xu et al. [28]. The sideslip angle, vehicle sideslip angle, the yaw rate of the front
parameters in this model are illustrated in Table 1. and rear part, and rear tire lateral force decrease with the
During the current research, the snaking steering process increase of front tire stiffness. Only the front tire lateral force
is usually a typical test scenario, as shown in Figure 2. increases with the front tire stiffness.
During the field test, the fully loaded articulated vehicle In Figure 7, the RMS and peak value of the front tire
runs on a cement road. The vehicle steering angle variation sideslip angle increase with the rear tire cornering stiffness
range is from -10 to 10 degrees (as shown in Figure 3). The while the value of the rear tire decreases with it. The variation
vehicle velocity also varies in the time domain, as shown in range of the front tire sideslip angle is lower than the rear
Figure 4. According to the input in Figures 3 and 4, the yaw tire. The RMS and peak value of the vehicle sideslip angle
rate of the vehicle can be calculated. The simulated yaw rate drop with the increasing of rear tire stiffness, from 4.8 to 4.1
4 Shock and Vibration

Table 1: Parameters and value in the single-track model.

Parameter Symbol Value Unit
Vehicle mass of the front part m1 21000 kg
Vehicle mass of the rear part m2 53500 kg
Yawing moment inertia of the front part Izf 42000 kg·m2
Yawing moment inertia of the rear part Izr 119000 kg·m2
Front tire cornering stiffness kf 70000 N/rad
Rear tire cornering stiffness kr 150000 N/rad
Distance between the front axle and CG of the front part Lf1 −0.45 m
Distance between the articulation point and CG of the front part Lf2 2.13 m
Distance between the articulation point and CG of the rear part Lr2 2.31 m
Distance between the rear axle t and CG of the front part Lr1 −1.13 m
Comprehensive elastic modulus of the steering system βe 7 × 108 Pa
Mean volume of the cavities with and without the rod Ve 0.0036 m3
Areas of cavity cross section with rod A1 0.0095 m2
Areas of cavity cross section without rod A2 0.0057 m2

10

Yaw rate of front

part (°/s)
0

-10

0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
Figure 2: Field test scenario. Measured
Simulation
Figure 5: Comparison of vehicle yaw rate in field test and
10 simulation.
Steering angle (°)

0
x-axis to compare the vehicle response. The front tire sideslip
angle decreases with the increase of the cornering stiffness
-10 ratio dramatically while the rear tire sideslip angle changes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
slightly. The vehicle sideslip angle and yaw rate of the vehicle
Time (s)
drop with the increasing ratio. The lateral force on the front
Figure 3: Input steering angle in the field test. and rear has the opposite trend; the front tire lateral force
increases with the ratio while the rear tire lateral force drops
with it. Compared to the tire and vehicle sideslip angle, the
yaw rate and lateral force vary with the cornering stiffness
18
ratio in a nonlinear trend.
Velocity (km/h)

17
16
15 3.3. Influence of the Payload Variation. The axle load of the
14 vehicle is generally seen as a key factor related to the vehicle’s
13 dynamic performance [36]. For the articulated vehicles,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 most of them operate in the engineering area. The axle load
Time (s) varies in a bigger range than the passenger car. There are two
Figure 4: Input velocity in the field test. methods to vary the payload, changing the load or the
distance between the load gravity center and articulation
hinge. In this paper, the payload is set in three cases to
degrees and 10.7 to 9.4 degrees, respectively. The RMS and investigate the influence of the payload on the vehicle’s
peak value of the yaw rate and rear tire lateral force climb lateral stability.
with the increase of the rear tire stiffness. The front tire
lateral force varies slightly as the rear tire stiffness changes. Case A: the load of the front axle varies from −30% to
In Case C, the rear tire cornering stiffness drops with the 30%, while the load on the rear axle stays the same.
increase of the front tire stiffness. Therefore, in Figure 8, the Case B: the load of the rear axle varies from −30% to
ratio of front and rear tire cornering stiffness is taken as the 30%, while the load on the front axle stays the same.
Shock and Vibration 5

5.8 13 4.8
5.6 12.5 11

Vehicle sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Vehicle sideslip angle,Peak (°)

Tire sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Tire sideslip angle,Peak (°)

5.4 4.6
12
5.2 10.5
11.5
5 4.4
11
4.8 10
10.5
4.6 4.2
4.4 10 9.5

4.2 9.5 4
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Front tire stiffness variation (%) Front tire stiffness variation (%)

Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak RMS

Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak Peak
(a) (b)

14 ×104 ×104
1.6 3.5

13.5
6
Lateral force,RMS (N) 1.4 3

Lateral force,Peak (N)

13
Yaw rate,RMS (°/s)

Yaw rate,Peak (°/s)

1.2 2.5
5.5 12.5
1 2
12

5 0.8 1.5
11.5

11 0.6 1
4.5
10.5 0.4 0.5
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Front tire stiffness variation (%) Front tire stiffness variation (%)

Front part,RMS Front part,Peak Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak

Rear part,RMS Rear part,Peak Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak
(c) (d)

Figure 6: Vehicle performance of the front tire cornering stiffness variation. (a) RMS and peak value of tire sideslip angle. (b) RMS and peak
value of vehicle sideslip angle. (c) RMS and peak vehicle yaw rate. (d) RMS and peak value of lateral force.

5.6 13 4.8
11
Vehicle sideslip angle,Peak (°)

5.4 12.5
Vehicle sideslip angle,RMS (°)
Tire sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Tire sideslip angle,Peak (°)

4.6
5.2 12
10.5
5 11.5
4.4
4.8 11 10
4.6 10.5
4.2
4.4 10 9.5

4.2 9.5 4
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Rear tire stiffness variation (%) Rear tire stiffness variation (%)

Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak RMS

Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak Peak
(a) (b)
Figure 7: Continued.
6 Shock and Vibration

7 16 ×104 ×104
1.8 4

6.5 15 1.6 3.5

Lateral force,RMS (N)

Lateral force,Peak (N)

14 1.4
Yaw rate,RMS (°/s)

Yaw rate,Peak (°/s)

6 3
13 1.2
5.5 2.5
12 1
5 2
11 0.8
4.5 10 0.6 1.5

4 9 0.4 1
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Rear tire stiffness variation (%) Rear tire stiffness variation (%)

Front part,RMS Front part,Peak Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak

Rear part,RMS Rear part,Peak Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak
(c) (d)

Figure 7: Vehicle performance of the rear tire cornering stiffness variation. (a) RMS and peak value of tire sideslip angle. (b) RMS and peak
value of vehicle sideslip angle. (c) RMS and peak vehicle yaw rate. (d) RMS and peak value of lateral force.

12.5 11
12 4.6
Vehicle sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Vehicle sideslip angle,Peak (°)

Tire sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Tire sideslip angle,Peak (°)

10.5
5 11.5
4.4
11 10
10.5
4.5 4.2
10 9.5

9.5 4 9
4 9
8.5 3.8 8.5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Front/rear tire cornering stiffness ratio Front/rear tire cornering stiffness ratio

Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak RMS

Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak Peak
(a) (b)

×104 ×104
7 16 1.8
6.5 15 1.6 4
Lateral force,RMS (N)

Lateral force,Peak (N)

6 14 1.4
Yaw rate,RMS (°/s)

Yaw rate,Peak (°/s)

3
5.5 13 1.2

5 12 1
2
4.5 11 0.8

4 10 0.6 1
3.5 9 0.4
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Front/rear tire cornering stiffness ratio Front/rear tire cornering stiffness ratio

Front part,RMS Front part,Peak Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak

Rear part,RMS Rear part,Peak Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak
(c) (d)

Figure 8: Vehicle performance of the tire cornering stiffness ratio variation. (a) RMS and peak value of tire sideslip angle. (b) RMS and peak
value of vehicle sideslip angle. (c) RMS and peak vehicle yaw rate. (d) RMS and peak value of lateral force.
Shock and Vibration 7

Case C: the load of the front axle varies from −30% to increase with the variation of the rear wheelbase at a steady
30%, while the load on the rear axle varies from 30% to rate. The lateral force of the tires varies slightly during the
−30%. variation range of the rear wheelbase.
In Figure 14, when the wheelbase of the front part drops
The corresponding vehicle performance of the three
from 30% to −30% and the wheelbase of the rear part in-
cases is shown in Figures 9–11.
creases from −30% to 30%, the front/rear wheelbase ratio
In Figure 9, the tire sideslip angle, vehicle sideslip angle,
increases from 0.5 to 3. The tire sideslip angle, the yaw rate of
and yaw rate increase with the front load at a steady rate. The
the front and rear parts, and the lateral force of the rear tire
lateral force on the front and rear tire increases slightly.
show a decreasing trend with the decreasing rate. The lateral
As shown in Figure 10, the tire sideslip angle and vehicle
force of the front tire keeps still during the range. The vehicle
sideslip angle increase with the rear axle load. For the front
sideslip angle increases with the front/rear wheelbase ratio,
tire sideslip angle, the increasing rate decreases with the
and the increasing rate becomes smaller.
improvement of the rear load, and the peak value of the front
tire decreases slightly when the rear part load variation is in
the 10% to 30% range. The yaw rate drops with the increase 3.5. Influence of Vehicle Speed. According to the current
of the load. The lateral force on the front tire almost stays the research, the vehicle that runs at a high speed usually has
same when the load changes, while the rear tire’s lateral force poor lateral stability [38]. For the articulation vehicle, the
increases with it. normal operating speed range is lower than the passenger
In Figure 11, the RMS and peak value of the front tire car. Based on the relevant researches, the speed range is set
sideslip angle have different trends: the RMS value decreases from 5 to 35 km/h.
with the improving of the load ratio while the peak value Figure 15 shows a clear upward trend of these vehicle
drops with it. The RMS of the vehicle sideslip angle decreases performance indicators. According to Figure 15(a), the front
from 4.46 to 4.28 degrees as the load ratio changes. The tire sideslip angle is lower than the rear tire when the vehicle
vehicle sideslip angle increases at first and then drops when velocity is smaller than 18 km/h; after that, the angles of the
the load ratio is in the range of 1.1 to 1.7. For the yaw rate of front and rear tire are relatively close to each other. Based on
the vehicle, all of them increase with the load ratio at a Figures 15(c) and 15(d), the yaw rate and lateral force of the
different rate. The lateral force on the front tire holds the rear part are higher than the front part in the whole range.
same while the rear tire drops with the improving of the load For the vehicle sideslips angle, the minimum peak value
ratio. emerges at the velocity of 10 km/h instead of 5 km/h.
Because the velocity change range is larger than the other
parameters, the variation range of the vehicle lateral stability
3.4. Influence of the Wheelbase. The wheelbase is also a vital criteria is far higher than the change of the tire cornering
factor of the vehicle’s lateral stability [37]. Three cases are set stiffness, vehicle payload, CG position, and wheelbase.
to analyze the influence of this parameter. During the variation range of vehicle speed, the tire sideslip
Case A: the distance between the front axle and the angle RMS and peak value vary from 1 to 8 degrees and 4 to
articulation point varies from −30% to 30%, while the 18 degrees, the RMS and peak value of vehicle sideslip angle
rear part stays the same. increase from 2 to 8 degrees and 4 to 18 degrees, the yaw rate
Case B: the distance between the rear axle and the of the vehicle varies from 2 to 9°/s and 7 to 18°/s, and for the
articulation point varies from −30% to 30%, while the lateral force, the RMS and peak range are 0.25 × 104 to
front part stays the same. 2 × 104 N and 0.5 × 104 to 4.5 × 104 N.
Case C: the distance between the front axle and the
articulation point is from −30% to 30%, while the 4. Sensitivity Analysis
distance between the rear axle and the articulation
A parametric sensitivity correlation analysis is initiated to
point varies from 30% to −30% at the same time.
understand the vehicle parameters sensitivity of the stability
In Figure 12, when the wheelbase of the front part in- criteria. Based on the simulation result in the last part, the
creases from −30% to 30%, the sideslip angle of the tires correlation sensitivity of the abovementioned parameters on
drops with the increase of the front wheelbase and the rear the proposed vehicle stability criteria is shown in Figure 16.
tire has a bigger decreasing rate. The RMS and peak value of Four bars with different colors represent the variation value
the vehicle sideslip vary from 9.75 to 10.4 and 4.26 to 4.5 of the seven indicators based on the original value. Since the
degrees. The yaw rate of the front vehicle increases slightly variation range of the speed is different from the other
while the yaw rate of the rear part and lateral force of the parameters, the influence of the speed is not shown in
front and rear tire drop slightly with the variation of the Figure 16.
front wheelbase. For the front tire sideslip angle, the tire stiffness of the
In Figure 13, when the wheelbase of the rear axle in- front wheel has the most significant negative effect on it. The
creases from −30% to 30%, the front/rear tire sideslip angle rear load has the most crucial influence on the rear tire
has the opposite trend. The front tire’s sideslip angle drops sideslip angle. For the vehicle sideslip angle, the front tire
with it while the rear tire increases with it. The vehicle stiffness plays the most important factor in it. Both the yaw
sideslip angle and yaw rate of the front and rear vehicle rate of the vehicle’s front and rear parts have rear load and
8 Shock and Vibration

5.6 12.5 4.6 10.6

5.4

Vehicle sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Vehicle sideslip angle,Peak (°)

Tire sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Tire sideslip angle,Peak (°)

12 10.4
4.5
5.2

5 11.5 10.2
4.4
4.8 11 10
4.6
4.3
10.5 9.8
4.4

4.2 10 4.2 9.6

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Front part load variation (%) Front part load variation (%)

Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak RMS

Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak Peak
(a) (b)

14 ×104 ×104
1.5 3.5
6
13.5
3
Lateral force,RMS (N)

Lateral force,Peak (N)

Yaw rate,RMS (°/s)

Yaw rate,Peak (°/s)

13
5.5 2.5
12.5 1
2
12
5
11.5 1.5

11 0.5 1
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Front part load variation (%) Front part load variation (%)

Front part,RMS Front part,Peak Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak

Rear part,RMS Rear part,Peak Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak
(c) (d)

Figure 9: Vehicle performance of the front part load variation. (a) RMS and peak value of tire sideslip angle. (b) RMS and peak value of
vehicle sideslip angle. (c) RMS and peak vehicle yaw rate. (d) RMS and peak value of lateral force.

13.5 4.6 10.6

13
Vehicle sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Vehicle sideslip angle,Peak (°)

5.5
Tire sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Tire sideslip angle,Peak (°)

10.4
4.5
12.5

12 10.2
5 4.4
11.5 10
11
4.3
4.5 9.8
10.5

10 4.2 9.6
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Rear part load variation (%) Rear part load variation (%)

Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak RMS

Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak Peak
(a) (b)
Figure 10: Continued.
Shock and Vibration 9

×104 ×104
6.5 15 1.6 3.5

1.4
3
6 14

Lateral force,RMS (N)

Lateral force,Peak (N)

Yaw rate,RMS (°/s)

Yaw rate,Peak (°/s)

1.2
2.5
5.5 13 1
2
0.8
5 12
1.5
0.6

4.5 11 0.4 1
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Rear part load variation (%) Rear part load variation (%)

Front part,RMS Front part,Peak Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak

Rear part,RMS Rear part,Peak Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak
(c) (d)

Figure 10: Vehicle performance of the rear part load variation. (a) RMS and peak value of tire sideslip angle. (b) RMS and peak value of
vehicle sideslip angle. (c) RMS and peak vehicle yaw rate. (d) RMS and peak value of lateral force.

5.8 13 10.1

5.6 4.45
Vehicle sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Vehicle sideslip angle,Peak (°)

12.5
Tire sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Tire sideslip angle,Peak (°)

10.05
5.4
12
5.2 4.4 10
11.5
5 9.95
11 4.35
4.8
9
4.6 10.5
4.3
4.4 10 9.85
0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5
Front/rear load ratio Front/rear load ratio

Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak RMS

Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak Peak
(a) (b)

×104 ×104
7 16 1.5 3.5

6.5 15
3
Lateral force,RMS (N)

Lateral force,Peak (N)

Yaw rate,RMS (°/s)

Yaw rate,Peak (°/s)

6 14
2.5
5.5 13 1
2
5 12

4.5 11 1.5

4 10 0.5 1
0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5
Front/rear load ratio Front/rear load ratio

Front part,RMS Front part,Peak Front tire, RMS Front tire, Peak
Rear part,RMS Rear part,Peak Rear tire, RMS Rear tire, Peak
(c) (d)

Figure 11: Vehicle performance of the load ratio variation. (a) RMS and peak value of tire sideslip angle. (b) RMS and peak value of vehicle
sideslip angle. (c) RMS and peak vehicle yaw rate. (d) RMS and peak value of lateral force.
10 Shock and Vibration

5.5 13 4.55 10.4

10.3

Vehicle sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Vehicle sideslip angle,Peak (°)

12.5 4.5
Tire sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Tire sideslip angle,Peak (°)

10.2
12 4.45
10.1
5 11.5 4.4
10
11 4.35
9.9
10.5 4.3 9.8

4.5 10 4.25 9.7

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Front wheelbase variation (%) Front wheelbase variation (%)

Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak RMS

Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak Peak
(a) (b)

×104 ×104
14 1.5 3.5
6
13.5
3
Lateral force,RMS (N)

Lateral force,Peak (N)

Yaw rate,RMS (°/s)

Yaw rate,Peak (°/s)

13
5.5 2.5
12.5 1
2
12
5
11.5 1.5

11 0.5 1
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Front wheelbase variation (%) Front wheelbase variation (%)

Front part,RMS Front part,Peak Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak

Rear part,RMS Rear part,Peak Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak
(c) (d)

Figure 12: Vehicle performance of the front wheelbase variation. (a) RMS and peak value of tire sideslip angle. (b) RMS and peak value of
vehicle sideslip angle. (c) RMS and peak vehicle yaw rate. (d) RMS and peak value of lateral force.

4.55 10.4

5.2 12
10.3
Vehicle sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Vehicle sideslip angle,Peak (°)

4.5
Tire sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Tire sideslip angle,Peak (°)

5.1 10.2
11.5 4.45
5
10.1
4.9 4.4
10
4.8 11
4.35
9.9
4.7
10.5 4.3 9.8
4.6
4.5 4.25 9.6
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Rear wheelbase variation (%) Rear wheelbase variation (%)

Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak RMS

Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak Peak
(a) (b)
Figure 13: Continued.
Shock and Vibration 11

×104
14.5 14000
6 14 3

Lateral force,RMS (N)

12000

Lateral force,Peak (N)

Yaw rate,RMS (°/s)

13.5

Yaw rate,Peak (°/s)

13 2.5
5.5 10000
12.5
12 2
8000
5 11.5
1.5
11 6000
10.5
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Rear wheelbase variation (%) Rear wheelbase variation (%)

Front part,RMS Front part,Peak Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak

Rear part,RMS Rear part,Peak Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak
(c) (d)

Figure 13: Vehicle performance of the rear wheelbase variation. (a) RMS and peak value of tire sideslip angle. (b) RMS and peak value of
vehicle sideslip angle. (c) RMS and peak vehicle yaw rate. (d) RMS and peak value of lateral force.

5.6 13 4.6 10.6

5.4 12.5
Vehicle sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Vehicle sideslip angle,Peak (°)

Tire sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Tire sideslip angle,Peak (°)

10.4
4.5
5.2 12
10.2
5 11.5 4.4
10
4.8 11
4.3
9.8
4.6 10.5

4.4 10 4.2 9.6

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Front/rear wheelbase ratio Front/rear wheelbase ratio

Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak RMS

Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak Peak
(a) (b)
Figure 14: Continued.
12 Shock and Vibration

×104 ×104
14.5 1.5 3.5
6 14
3

Lateral force,RMS (N)

Lateral force,Peak (N)

13.5
Yaw rate,RMS (°/s)

Yaw rate,Peak (°/s)

13 2.5
5.5
1
12.5 2
12
5
1.5
11.5

11 0.5 1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Front/rear wheelbase ratio Front/rear wheelbase ratio

Front part,RMS Front part,Peak Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak

Rear part,RMS Rear part,Peak Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak
(c) (d)

Figure 14: Vehicle performance of the wheelbase ratio variation. (a) RMS and peak value of tire sideslip angle. (b) RMS and peak value of
vehicle sideslip angle. (c) RMS and peak vehicle yaw rate. (d) RMS and peak value of lateral force.

8 18 8 18

7 16 16
Vehicle sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Vehicle sideslip angle,Peak (°)

7
Tire sideslip angle,RMS (°)

Tire sideslip angle,Peak (°)

6 14 14
6
5 12 12
5
4 10 10
4
3 8 8

2 6 3 6

1 4 2 4
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Velocity (km/h) Velocity (km/h)

Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak RMS

Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak Peak
(a) (b)
Figure 15: Continued.
Shock and Vibration 13

×104 ×104
9 18 4.5
2 4
8
16

Lateral force,RMS (N)

7 3.5

Lateral force,Peak (N)

Yaw rate,RMS (°/s)

Yaw rate,Peak (°/s)

14 1.5 3
6

5 12 2.5
1 2
4
10
3 1.5
8 0.5
2 1

1 6 0.5
5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Velocity (km/h) Velocity (km/h)

Front part,RMS Front part,Peak Front tire,RMS Front tire,Peak

Rear part,RMS Rear part,Peak Rear tire,RMS Rear tire,Peak
(c) (d)

Figure 15: Vehicle performance of the vehicle speed variation. (a) RMS and peak value of tire sideslip angle. (b) RMS and peak value of
vehicle sideslip angle. (c) RMS and peak vehicle yaw rate. (d) RMS and peak value of lateral force.

10 10
Variation percentage (%)
Variation percentage (%)

5
5

0
0
-5

-5
-10

-10 -15
Front tire
stiffness

stiffness

Front load

Front
wheelbase

Rear
wheelbase
Rear tire

Rear load
Front tire
stiffness

stiffness

Front load

Front
wheelbase

Rear
wheelbase
Rear tire

Rear load

-30% RMS -30% Peak -30% RMS -30% Peak

+30% RMS +30% Peak +30% RMS +30% Peak
(a) (b)
Figure 16: Continued.
14 Shock and Vibration

10 15
Variation percentage (%) 10

Variation percentage (%)

5 5
0
0
-5

-5 -10
-15
-10 -20
Front tire

Front tire
stiffness

stiffness

Front load

Front
wheelbase

Rear
wheelbase

stiffness

stiffness

Front load

Front
wheelbase

Rear
wheelbase
Rear tire

Rear load

Rear tire

Rear load
-30% RMS -30% Peak -30% RMS -30% Peak
+30% RMS +30% Peak +30% RMS +30% Peak
(c) (d)
15 30
10 20
Variation percentage (%)

5 Variation percentage (%) 10

0
0
-5
-10
-10
-15 -20

-20 -30
Front tire
stiffness

stiffness

Front load

Front
wheelbase

Rear
wheelbase
Rear tire

Rear load

Front tire
stiffness

stiffness

Front load

Front
wheelbase

Rear
wheelbase
Rear tire

-30% RMS -30% Peak -30% RMS Rear load

-30% Peak
+30% RMS +30% Peak +30% RMS +30% Peak
(e) (f )
30

20
Variation percentage (%)

10

-10

-20

-30
Front tire
stiffness

stiffness

Front load

Front
wheelbase

Rear
wheelbase
Rear tire

Rear load

-30% RMS -30% Peak

+30% RMS +30% Peak
(g)

Figure 16: Variation percentage of the vehicle performance criteria compared with the original situation. (a) Front tire sideslip angle. (b)
Rear tire sideslip angle. (c) Vehicle sideslip angle. (d) Yaw rate of vehicle front part. (e) Yaw rate of vehicle rear part. (f ) Front lateral force.
(g) Rear lateral force.
Shock and Vibration 15

1.2 1.1

1.05
1.1
Front tire sideslip angle

Rear tire sideslip angle

1
1
0.95
0.9
0.9

0.8
0.85

0.7 0.8
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Parameter variateion percentage (%) Parameter variateion percentage (%)

Front tire stiffness Rear load Front tire stiffness Rear load
Rear tire stiffness Front wheelbase Rear tire stiffness Front wheelbase
Front load Rear wheelbase Front load Rear wheelbase
(a) (b)
1.2 1.2

1.1 1.1
Vehicle sideslip angle

Front part yaw rate

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Parameter variateion percentage (%) Parameter variateion percentage (%)

Front tire stiffness Rear load Front tire stiffness Rear load
Rear tire stiffness Front wheelbase Rear tire stiffness Front wheelbase
Front load Rear wheelbase Front load Rear wheelbase
(c) (d)
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
Rear part yaw rate

1
Front lateral force

1
0.9
0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Parameter variateion percentage (%) Parameter variateion percentage (%)

Front tire stiffness Rear load Front tire stiffness Rear load
Rear tire stiffness Front wheelbase Rear tire stiffness Front wheelbase
Front load Rear wheelbase Front load Rear wheelbase
(e) (f )
Figure 17: Continued.
16 Shock and Vibration

1.3

1.2

1.1

Rear lateral force

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Parameter variateion percentage (%)

Front tire stiffness Rear load

Rear tire stiffness Front wheelbase
Front load Rear wheelbase
(g)

Figure 17: Vehicle lateral stability sensitivity versus vehicle parameter variation. (a) Front tire sideslip angle. (b) Rear tire sideslip angle. (c)
Vehicle sideslip angle. (d) Yaw rate of vehicle front part. (e) Yaw rate of vehicle rear part. (f ) Front lateral force. (g) Rear lateral force.

rear tire stiffness as the two most important factors. For the 5. Conclusion
lateral force on the front and rear tire, the corresponding tire
cornering stiffness is the most crucial factor. The conflict and parametrical sensitivity of the articulated
The variation range of the lateral force is from −25 to vehicle stability versus the vehicle parameter variation are
25%, and the ranges for the yaw rate of the front and rear analyzed based on the vehicle dynamic theory. To accom-
parts are the same, −20 to 15%. The front tire sideslip angle plish the goal, the single-track articulated vehicle model with
and vehicle sideslip angle have the minimum variation 3 DOFs is established and validated with the field test result
percentage, which is −15 to 10%. of the current research. The snaking maneuver at the
The rear load plays a relatively important factor in the constant speed of 15 km/h is taken as the input of the
variation of rear tire sideslip angle, vehicle sideslip angle, and simulation. The influences of the tire cornering stiffness,
yaw rate of the vehicle, which is due to its massive value of vehicle load, wheelbase, and speed are analyzed, and the
the rear load compared to the front load. vehicle load and wheelbase are divided into front and rear
According to Figure 16, the variation trends of the values due to the articulated vehicle’s structural
RMS and peak value are similar. Therefore, the sensitivity characteristic.
analysis is initiated based on the RMS value of the in- Based on the result of the analysis, the following con-
dicators. The sensitivity analysis result is shown in Fig- clusions can be drawn:
ure 17. The seven lateral stability indicators have a nearly
(1) The tire cornering stiffness has a positive effect on the
linear relationship with the vehicle parameters. For the
corresponding tire lateral force. The front tire cor-
front tire sideslip angle, the influence of the wheelbase is
nering stiffness harms the seven indicators except for
so small that can be neglected. The front tire stiffness
the lateral force on front tire. The rear tire cornering
harms it and the front and rear load have a positive effect
stiffness has a positive effect on the seven indicators
on it. In Figure 17(b), the increasing of load on the front
except for the rear tire sideslip angle.
and rear axle leads the rear tire sideslip angle to increase,
and the rear wheelbase has the minimum influence on it, (2) The increase of the load on the front and rear will
while the other vehicle parameters have a negative in- lead to the increase of the indicators except for the
fluence on it. For the vehicle sideslip angle, the rear yaw rate of the front and rear parts.
wheelbase has the minimum effect on it. The increase of (3) The load of the rear part has a comparatively high
the rear tire stiffness causes a minor variation of sideslip influence on the rear tire sideslip angle, vehicle
angle compared to the decrease of the tire stiffness. For the sideslip angle, and the vehicle yaw rate of the front
sensitivity of the yaw rate of the front and rear parts, the and rear part. The reason that the load of the rear part
rear tire stiffness, front tire stiffness, and rear load have the has a higher impact than the front part is that the
same trend. For the lateral force, the most critical factor to load of the rear part is much higher than the front
the force is the corresponding tire stiffness; however, the part.
front tire stiffness harms the rear lateral force, while the
rear tire stiffness has a positive effect on the front lateral (4) The wheelbase of the rear axle has a relatively low
force. impact on the indicators. The wheelbase of the front
Shock and Vibration 17

axle has a relatively low effect on the indicators [9] J. Na and G. Gil, “Virtual optimization of tire cornering
except for the rear tire sideslip angle and lateral force. characteristics to satisfy handling performance of a vehicle,”
in Proceedings of the SAE 2016 World Congress & Exhibition,
(5) The variation range of the indicators is lower than
Detroit, MI, US, April 2016.
the variation range of the vehicle parameters. The [10] M. Minakawa, “The roles of front and rear cornering stiffness
increase of the vehicle speed leads to the increase of in vehicle directional dynamics,” SAE International Journal of
all the indicators, which means the lateral stability Passenger Cars - Mechanical Systems, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 935–
gets worse. 943, 2016.
[11] C. P. Dickerson, M. W. Arndt, and S. M. Arndt, “Vehicle
Data Availability handling with tire tread separation,” in Proceedings of the SAE
1999 World Congress & Exhibition, pp. 421–442, Detroit, MI,
The data used to support the findings of this study are US, January 1999.
available from the corresponding author upon request. [12] S. M. Arndt and M. W. Arndt, “The influence of a rear tire
tread separation on a vehicle’s stability and control,” in
Proceedings of the SAE 2001 World Congress & Exhibition,
Conflicts of Interest Detroit, MI, US, June 2001.
[13] Y. Deng, Y. Zhao, F. Lin, Z. Xiao, M. Zhu, and H. Li,
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. “Simulation of steady-state rolling non-pneumatic mechan-
ical elastic wheel using finite element method,” Simulation
Acknowledgments Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 60–79, 2018.
[14] Y.-j. Deng, Y.-q. Zhao, F. Lin, and L. -g. Zang, “Influence of
This study was funded by the Innovative Research Team structure and material on the vibration modal characteristics
Development Program of Ministry of Education of China of novel combined flexible road wheel,” Defence Technology,
(IRT_17R83) and the 111 Project (B17034) of China and the 2021, In press.
Science and Technology Major Project of Hubei Province [15] R. W. Wade, D. H. Klyde, T. J. Rosenthal, and D. M. Smith,
(2020DEB014). Great acknowledgments are given to Hubei “Estimation of passenger vehicle inertial properties and their
effect on stability and handling,” in Proceedings of the SAE
Emergency Industry Technology Research Institute Co. Ltd.
2003 World Congress & Exhibition, pp. 1032–1050, Detroit,
MI, US, January 2003.
References [16] X. Li, G. Wang, Z. Yao, and J. Qu, “Dynamic model and
validation of an articulated steering wheel loader on slopes
[1] G. Bai, L. Liu, Y. Meng, W. Luo, Q. Gu, and B. Ma, “Path and over obstacles,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 51, no. 9,
tracking of mining vehicles based on nonlinear model pre- pp. 1305–1323, 2013.
dictive control,” Applied Sciences-BASEL, vol. 9, no. 7, 2019. [17] H. Ren, T. Shim, J. Ryu, and S. Chen, “Development of ef-
[2] B. J. Alshaer, T. T. Darabseh, and A. Q. Momani, “Modelling fective bicycle model for wide ranges of vehicle operations,” in
and control of an autonomous articulated mining vehicle Proceedings of the SAE 2014 World Congress & Exhibition,
navigating a predefined path,” International Journal of Heavy Detroit, MI, US, January 2014.
Vehicle Systems, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 152–168, 2014. [18] R. Whitehead, W. Travis, D. M. Bevly, and G. Flowers, “A
[3] Y. Gao, Y. Shen, T. Xu, W. Zhang, and L. Guvenc, “Oscillatory study of the effect of various vehicle properties on rollover
yaw motion control for hydraulic power steering articulated
propensity,” in Proceedings of the SAE 2004 World Congress &
vehicles considering the influence of varying bulk modulus,”
Exhibition, Detroit, MI, US, January 2004.
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 27,
[19] H. Mazumder, M. M. A. E. Hassan, M. Ektesabi, and
no. 3, pp. 1284–1292, 2019.
A. Kapoor, T. Bangkok, Performance analysis of EV for
[4] Y. Zhang, A. Khajepour, E. Hashemi, Y. Qin, and Y. Huang,
different mass distributions to ensure safe handling,” Energy
“Reconfigurable model predictive control for articulated ve-
Procedia, vol. 14, pp. 949–954, 2012.
hicle stability with experimental validation,” IEEE Transac-
[20] W.-H. Wang, X.-J. Xu, H.-J. Xu, and Fa-L. Zhou, “Enhancing
tions on Transportation Electrification, vol. 6, no. 1,
pp. 308–317, 2020. lateral dynamic performance of all-terrain vehicles using
[5] A. Tahouni, M. Mirzaei, and B. Najjari, “Novel constrained variable-wheelbase chassis,” Advances in Mechanical Engi-
nonlinear control of vehicle dynamics using integrated active neering, vol. 12, no. 5, 2020.
torque vectoring and electronic stability control,” IEEE [21] Y. Jiang, X. Xu, and L. Zhang, “Heading tracking of 6WID/
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 10, 4WIS unmanned ground vehicles with variable wheelbase
pp. 9564–9572, 2019 Aug 5. based on model free adaptive control,” Mechanical Systems
[6] K. Watanabe and M. Kitano, “Study on steerability of ar- and Signal Processing, vol. 159, 2021.
ticulated tracked vehicles - Part 1. Theoretical and experi- [22] A. Tahouni, M. Mirzaei, and B. Najjari, “Applied nonlinear
mental analysis,” Journal of Terramechanics, vol. 23, no. 2, control of vehicle stability with control and state constraints,”
pp. 69–83, 1986. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part D:
[7] M. A. Hassan, M. A. A. Abdelkareem, G. Tan, and Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 234, no. 1, pp. 191–211,
M. M. Moheyeldein, “Conflict and sensitivity analysis of 2020 Jan.
vehicular stability using a two-state linear bicycle model,” [23] F. D. Rossa, G. Mastinu, and C. Piccardi, “Bifurcation analysis
Shock and Vibration, 2021. of an automobile model negotiating a curve,” Vehicle System
[8] A. R. Wade, D. H. Klyde, T. J. Rosenthal, and D. M. Klyde, Dynamics, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 1539–1562, 2012.
“The effect of tire characteristics on vehicle handling and [24] A. Rehnberg and L. Drugge, “Snaking stability of articulated
stability,” SAE Transactions, pp. 1039–1051, 2000. frame steer vehicles with axle suspension,” International
18 Shock and Vibration

Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 119–138,

2010.
[25] A. Pazooki, S. Rakheja, and D. Cao, “Kineto-dynamic di-
rectional response analysis of an articulated frame steer ve-
hicle,” International Journal of Vehicle Design, vol. 65, no. 1,
pp. 1–30, 2014.
[26] J.. Wang, “Research on the equivalent torsion stiffness for the
heavy hydraulic steering system of articulated vehicles,”
Mining Processing Equipment, vol. 7, pp. 47–49, 2008.
[27] Y. Shen, Y. Li, and J. Chun, “Analysis of handling stability for
electric-driven articulated truck,” Transactions of the Chinese
Society of Agricultural Engineering, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 71–78,
2013.
[28] T. Xu, X. Ji, Y. Liu, and Y. Liu, “Differential drive based yaw
stabilization using MPC for distributed-drive articulated
heavy vehicle,” IEEE ACCESS, vol. 8, pp. 104052–104062,
2020.
[29] Y. Yin, S. Rakheja, J. Yang, and P. E. Boileau, “Analysis of a
flow volume regulated frame steering system and experi-
mental verifications,” in Proceedings of the SAE 2015 World
Congress & Exhibition, Rosemont, IL, USA, July 2015.
[30] Yu Gao, Y.-H. Shen, S.-R. Cao, T. Xu, and W.-M. Zhang, “An
active stability controller design for E-drive articulated steer
vehicles,” in Proceedings of the 35th Chinese Control Con-
ference, pp. 8993–8998, Chengdu, China, July 2016.
[31] T. Xu, Y. Shen, Y. Huang, and A. Khajepour, “Study of hy-
draulic steering process for articulated heavy vehicles based
on the principle of the least resistance,” IEEE, vol. 24, no. 4,
pp. 1662–1673, 2019.
[32] T. Xu, X. Ji, and Y. Shen, “A novel assist-steering method with
direct yaw moment for distributed-drive articulated heavy
vehicle,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
- Part K: Journal of Multi-Body Dynamics, vol. 234, no. 1,
pp. 214–224, 2020.
[33] C. Long and H. Chen, “Comparative study between the magic
formula and the neural network tire model based on genetic
algorithm,” in Proceedings of the 2010 Third International
Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology and Security
Informatics (IITSI 2010), pp. 280–284, Jian, China, April 2010.
[34] Z. Qi, S. Taheri, B. Wang, and H. Yu, “Estimation of the tyre-
road maximum friction coefficient and slip slope based on a
novel tyre model,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 53, no. 4,
pp. 506–525, 2015.
[35] Y.-J. Deng, Y.-Q. Zhao, H. Xu, M.-M. Zhu, and Z. Xiao,
“Finite element modeling of interaction between non-pneu-
matic mechanical elastic wheel and soil,” Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part D: Journal of Au-
tomobile Engineering, vol. 233, no. 13, pp. 3293–3304, 2019.
[36] S. Rao, A. Sidhu, M. Johnson, M. Brooks, H. Gary, and
D. Guenther, “Model based study of stability limits for three
wheeled vehicles using adams/car,” Proceedings of the ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposi-
tion, vol. 9, pp. 243–252, 2012.
[37] A. Soltani, A. Goodarzi, M. H. Shojaiefard, and A. Khajepour,
“Developing an active variable-wheelbase system for en-
hancing the vehicle dynamics,” Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers - Part D: Journal of Automobile
Engineering, vol. 231, no. 12, pp. 1640–1659, 2017.
[38] J. Zhu, S. Zhang, G. Wang, W. Zhang, and S. Zhang, “Research
on vehicle stability region under critical driving situations
with static bifurcation theory,” Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers - Part D: Journal of Automobile Engi-
neering, vol. 235, no. 8, pp. 2072–2085, 2021.