Скачать презентацию GTR-ESC-2007 -10 -A 1 1 PFC value ASTM

34841d232d46cd8fb05f87be8404e635.ppt

• Количество слайдов: 6

GTR-ESC-2007 -10 -A 1 (1) PFC value (ASTM 1136) Comparison between K value and PFC value on Dry surface : PFC (ASTM 1136) = 195/75 R 14（M/L Tiger Paw)= 1. 10 1. 05 : K value (1~ 6; different vehicle) 1. 00 0. 95 1; 225/50 R 18 2; 215/65 R 16(M+S) 3; 175/65 R 14(AS) 4; 205/55 R 16 5; 215/45 R 17 6; 205/50 R 17 0. 90 0. 85 0. 80 A B C Proving ground (K value)/(PFC value) Fig. 1： Friction Coefficient between typical proving ground 1. 3 Proving Ground A Proving Ground B Proving Ground C The surface friction difference between proving ground is small. (A-C: 6%) l. K-value shows higher than PFC. l. The difference depends on the tyre performance. l 1. 2 1. 1 1 0. 9 0. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fig. 2： The Ratio of K-value to PFC value for passenger cars

Lateral Displacement Influenced by Surface Friction(1) (2) 1. Contents of Study: - The comparison of lateral displacement on the different surface friction coeff. (0. 8, 0. 9, 1. 0) by using simulation of the Sine with Dwell test without ESC operation was done by several Japanese car manufactures. (condition: Vehicle speed; 80 km/h, Steering wheel angle; 5 x(0. 3 G steer angle)) Vehicle Simulation software A Car. Sim B In-house soft C ve. DYNA D In-house soft E Car. Sim F ADAMS/Car G H ADAMS Wheel Base FR P-car：A SUV：L FF P-car：B SUV：M FF P-car：C SUV：N FF P-car：D SUV：O FF P-car：E SUV：P FF P-car：F SUV：Q SUV：R FF P-car：G 2730 [mm] 2720 2700 2900 2730 2880 2775 2850 2635 2670 2620 2640 2440 Weight 1533 [kg] 1991 1570 1690 1520 2280 1659 2172 1375 1515 1400 1700 1896 958 Tyre 205/55 R 16 235/55 R 18 205/50 R 17 205/60 R 16 215/50 R 17 245/50 R 20 215/55 R 17 265/50 R 20 235/45 R 17 225/55 R 18 215/45 R 17 215/55 R 17 225/65 R 17 175/65 R 14

(3) Lateral Displacement Influenced by Surface Friction(2) 2. An Example of time history data (Passenger Car) [m] 6 0 Lateral　Displacement Steering Wheel Angle [deg] 120 1. 07 -120 -0. 5 [m/s 2 ] 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 [s] SWA[deg] m =　0. 8 m =　0. 9 m =　1. 0 0 -6 -0. 5 0 1 1. 5 -2. 0 10 Lateral　Acceleration 0. 5 2 2. 5 3 [s] [m] 2. 74 2. 94 -3. 5 0. 9 0 -0. 5 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 1. 1 1. 2[s] The influence of surface friction to the lateral displacement is small, because SWA[deg] m =　0. 8 m =　0. 9 m =　1. 0 -10 1 3 [s] Fig 3： Time history data of passenger car and are canceled each other.

Lateral Displacement Influenced by Surface Friction(3) 3. All results Lateral displacement [m] 3. 5 P-car : A P-car : B P-car : C P-car : D P-car : E P-car : F P-car : G 3 SUV : L SUV : M SUV : N SUV : O SUV : P SUV : Q SUV : R 2. 5 Ave. difference: 15 cm [email protected] 9 - [email protected] 8 = 18 cm [email protected] 0 - [email protected] 9 = 13 cm 2 1. 5 0. 8 0. 9 1 Friction coefficient (m) Fig 4． The influence of the surface friction to the lateral displacement (4)

(5) = Reference : The testing error range (1)= ∫∫AYCG・dt・dt @ 1. 07 s　[m] 2. 5 2. 4 2. 3 2. 2 2. 1 2. 0 22 [cm] 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 The tyre lot No. Fig 5． An Example of the error range of driving test by different lot number of tyres

= Reference : The testing error range (2) = (6) “Lateral Displacement” for SWAN > 5 • Least sensitivity to temperature (ΔT = 489 for 302) • High S/N (11. 0) • 4 significant track differences 20 cm 18 cm From NHTSA docket: No. 25801 -9