Blake Hinsey
04-01-2010, 06:51 PM
We ended up with some bad ARB calculations, so I have decided to go back and evaluate them myself. However I've run into a few things that trouble me. Perhaps someone can help.
I had a few questions concerning the article about roll stiffness distribution. I have used the RCVD book as well as your article. For these calculations.
After calculating the additional ARB roll stiffness required to achieve the selected roll gradient, it is distributed front and rear by the TLLT% (magic number). However, once I go back through the calculations and double check my total roll stiffness, I arrive at a number that is larger than my desired total roll stiffness.
Per the optimum G article and RCVD...
Roll gradient is given by... (1)
phi/Ay = W*H / (KphiF + KphiR)
The equation for additional roll stiffness required... (2)
KphiA = [ KphiDesired * KphiTire / (KphiTire - KphiDesired) ] - KphiW
After I calculate the additional roll stiffness required (KphiA) and distribute it front and rear via ARB, I now have my required roll stiffnesses required for each anti roll bar (KphiARB-F and KphiARB-R).
However, in order to do the load transfer evaluations, I need to know KphiF and KphiR (the total roll stiffnesses for each end of the car).
Rearranging equation (2), using KphiARB-F / KphiARB-R in place KphiA, solving for KphiDesired should give me the resultant roll stiffness for that end of the car.
After I calculate KphiDesired for each end of the car, the sum of these roll stiffnesses is greater than the initial design by as much as 30%. Resulting in a much smaller roll gradient (stiffer).
If I divide the value of KphiA as first calculated in equation (2) by a factor of two before distributing it front and rear, my resultant total roll stiffness is within a percent or less.
In summary, using the additional roll stiffness that I calculated per RCVD & Optimum G article article, I end up at a total roll stiffness greater than that of the initial target.
Anyone have any experience with this? It seems most of the solutions tell you how much roll stiffness you need, but never re-evaluate the roll gradient.
I had a few questions concerning the article about roll stiffness distribution. I have used the RCVD book as well as your article. For these calculations.
After calculating the additional ARB roll stiffness required to achieve the selected roll gradient, it is distributed front and rear by the TLLT% (magic number). However, once I go back through the calculations and double check my total roll stiffness, I arrive at a number that is larger than my desired total roll stiffness.
Per the optimum G article and RCVD...
Roll gradient is given by... (1)
phi/Ay = W*H / (KphiF + KphiR)
The equation for additional roll stiffness required... (2)
KphiA = [ KphiDesired * KphiTire / (KphiTire - KphiDesired) ] - KphiW
After I calculate the additional roll stiffness required (KphiA) and distribute it front and rear via ARB, I now have my required roll stiffnesses required for each anti roll bar (KphiARB-F and KphiARB-R).
However, in order to do the load transfer evaluations, I need to know KphiF and KphiR (the total roll stiffnesses for each end of the car).
Rearranging equation (2), using KphiARB-F / KphiARB-R in place KphiA, solving for KphiDesired should give me the resultant roll stiffness for that end of the car.
After I calculate KphiDesired for each end of the car, the sum of these roll stiffnesses is greater than the initial design by as much as 30%. Resulting in a much smaller roll gradient (stiffer).
If I divide the value of KphiA as first calculated in equation (2) by a factor of two before distributing it front and rear, my resultant total roll stiffness is within a percent or less.
In summary, using the additional roll stiffness that I calculated per RCVD & Optimum G article article, I end up at a total roll stiffness greater than that of the initial target.
Anyone have any experience with this? It seems most of the solutions tell you how much roll stiffness you need, but never re-evaluate the roll gradient.