基于非线性空气弹簧模型的整车仿真与主客观评价

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2024.01.002

汽车安全与节能学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (1): 20-28.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2024.01.002

基于非线性空气弹簧模型的整车仿真与主客观评价

邬明宇¹(), 郭沛林¹, 李耀超²^,³, 王仕伟²^,³, 侯杰²^,³, 危银涛¹

1.清华大学，智能绿色车辆与交通全国重点实验室（原汽车安全与节能国家重点实验室），北京 100084，中国
2.中国第一汽车股份有限公司研发总院，长春 130013，中国
3.汽车振动噪声与安全控制综合技术国家重点试验室，长春 130013，中国

收稿日期:2022-11-28 修回日期:2023-09-12 出版日期:2024-02-29 发布日期:2024-02-29
作者简介:邬明宇（1996—），男（汉），上海，博士后、助理研究员。E-mail：wu-my18@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助项目(52003142);国家自然科学基金资助项目(51761135124);国家自然科学基金资助项目(11672148)

Vehicle simulation and subjective and objective evaluation based on the nonlinear air spring model

WU Mingyu¹(), GUO Peilin¹, LI Yaochao²^,³, WANG Shiwei²^,³, HOU Jie²^,³, WEI Yintao¹

1. State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Green Vehicle and Mobility (Former: State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy), Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
2. General Research and Development Institute, China FAW Corporation Limited, Changchun 130013, China
3. State Key Laboratory of Comprehensive Technology on Automobile Vibration and Noise and Safety Control, Changchun 130013, China

Received:2022-11-28 Revised:2023-09-12 Online:2024-02-29 Published:2024-02-29

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

应用非线性空气弹簧模型，研究了空气悬架整车的动力学仿真和主观评价。结合空气弹簧频率、振幅相关性模型与Simulink仿真，给出了空气悬架整车7自由度模型，对比了不同路面情形下悬架动行程和簧上加速度的均方根值和功率谱密度。从时域和频率2个角度分析了不同速度、路面及减振器阻尼情形下空气悬架整车的动态特性。对装有不同空气弹簧的整车进行主、客观试验测试。结果表明：悬架动行程预测误差小于7%，簧上位置加速度共振峰值预测误差小于6%，共振频率预测误差小于6%；从而验证了所提模型的普适性和精确性；反映了带空气悬架整车的动态特性，解释了平顺性主客观试验的机理。

关键词: 车辆结构, 空气弹簧模型, 空气悬架, 动态特性, 平顺性, 主客观评价

Abstract:

As the application of the nonlinear air spring model, this paper conducted the dynamic simulation and subjective evaluation of the air suspension vehicle. Combined with frequency and amplitude dependency of the dynamic stiffness model of the air spring and Simulink simulation, a 7 degree-of-freedom model for vehicle with air suspension system was proposed. The root mean square value and power spectral density of suspension dynamic travel and sprung acceleration under different road conditions were compared. The dynamic characteristics of the air suspension vehicle under different speeds, road surfaces and shock absorber damping conditions were analyzed from the perspectives of time and frequency domain. The subjective and objective tests were carried out on the vehicle equipped with different air springs. The results show that the prediction error of suspension dynamic travel is less than 7%, and the prediction error of sprung position acceleration resonance peak value and resonance frequency is less than 6%. Therefore, the results verify the universality and accuracy of the proposed model. The model can reflect the dynamic characteristics of the vehicle with air suspension, and can provide mechanism explanations for subjective and objective ride comfort tests.

Key words: vehicle structure, air spring model, air suspension, dynamic characteristics, ride comfort, subjective and objective evaluation

中图分类号:

TK402

邬明宇, 郭沛林, 李耀超, 王仕伟, 侯杰, 危银涛. 基于非线性空气弹簧模型的整车仿真与主客观评价[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2024, 15(1): 20-28.

WU Mingyu, GUO Peilin, LI Yaochao, WANG Shiwei, HOU Jie, WEI Yintao. Vehicle simulation and subjective and objective evaluation based on the nonlinear air spring model[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2024, 15(1): 20-28.

图/表 10

参考文献 22

[1]	Spiroiu M A. Railway vehicle pneumatic rubber suspension modelling and analysis[J]. Mater Plast, 2018, 55(1): 24-27. doi: 10.37358/MP.18.1.4956 URL
[2]	余志生. 汽车理论(5版)[M]. 北京: 机械工业出版社, 2014: 99-105.
	YU Zhisheng. Automotive Theory (5^th Ed)[M]. Beijing: China Machine Press, 2014: 99-105. (in Chinese)
[3]	邬明宇, 李雪冰, 尹航, 等. 空气弹簧动刚度模型关键非线性参数辨识及动态特性研究[J]. 机械工程学报, 2022, 58(1): 88-96. doi: 10.3901/JME.2022.01.088
	WU Mingyu, LI Xuebing, YIN Hang, et al. Identification of key nonlinear parameters and research on dynamic characteristics of air spring dynamic stiffness model[J] J Mech Eng, 2022, 58(1): 88-96. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3901/JME.2022.01.088
[4]	WU Mingyu, WANG Shiwei, TONG Hao, et al. Investigation of the nonlinear dynamic stiffness of rolling-lobe air springs considering rubber Payne effect[J]. Rubber Chem Tech, 2022, 95(4): 671-688. doi: 10.5254/rct.22.77996 URL
[5]	CHEN Junjie, YIN Zhihong, Rakheja S, et al. Theoretical modelling and experimental analysis of the vertical stiffness of a convoluted air spring including the effect of the stiffness of the bellows[J]. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part D: J Auto Eng, 2018, 232(4): 547-561.
[6]	ZHU Hengjia, YANG James, ZHANG Yunqing, et al. Nonlinear dynamic model of air spring with a damper for vehicle ride comfort[J]. Nonlin Dyna, 2017, 89(2): 1545-1568.
[7]	QI Zhuang, LI Fu, YU Dalian. A three-dimensional coupled dynamics model of the air spring of a high-speed electric multiple unit train[J]. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit, 2017, 231(1): 3-18.
[8]	WU Mingyu, YIN Hang, LI Xuebing, et al. A new dynamic stiffness model with hysteresis of air springs based on thermodynamics[J]. J Sound Vibration, 2022, 521: Paper No 116693.
[9]	Nakajima T, Shimokawa Y, Mizuno M, et al. Air suspension system model coupled with leveling and differential pressure valves for railroad vehicle dynamics simulation[J]. J Compu Nonlinear Dyna, 2014, 9(3): Paper No 031006.
[10]	Oda N, Nishimura S. Vibration of air suspension bogies and their design[J]. Bull JSME, 1970, 13(55): 43-50. doi: 10.1299/jsme1958.13.43 URL
[11]	刘业刚. 橡胶空气弹簧驾驶室悬置平顺性仿真分析优化设计[D]. 青岛: 青岛科技大学, 2021.
	LIU Yegang. Simulation analysis and optimization design of rubber air spring cab suspension smoothness[D]. Qingdao: Qingdao University of Science and Technology, 2021. (in Chinese)
[12]	申伟, 杨颖鹏, 张华. 光学平台减振系统用空气弹簧的设计及试验研究[J]. 橡胶工业, 2021, 68(6): 7-14.
	SHEN Wei, YANG Yingpeng, ZHANG Hua. Design and Experimental Study of Air Springs for Optical Platform Damping System[J]. Rubb Ind, 2021, 68(6): 7-14. (in Chinese)
[13]	王云鹏, 申伟, 张华, 等. 舰船平台设备的减振设计及振动性能研究[J]. 机械研究与应用, 2021, 34(3): 4-17.
	WANG Yunpeng, SHEN Wei, ZHANG Hua, et al. Research on vibration reduction design and performance of ship platform equipment[J]. Mech Res Appl, 2021, 34(3): 4-17. (in Chinese)
[14]	Subbu R, Anthony S B, Sharma P. Two wheeled vehicle ride comfort evaluation and optimization using bump test rig in virtual simulation and validation through actual testing[R]. SAE Tech Paper, 2014-01-0078.
[15]	Uys P E, Els P S, Thoresson M. Suspension settings for optimal ride comfort of off-road vehicles travelling on roads with different roughness and speeds[J]. J Terramech, 2007, 44(2): 163-175. doi: 10.1016/j.jterra.2006.05.002 URL
[16]	Böke T A, Albak E, Kaya N, et al. Correlation between objective and subjective tests for vehicle ride comfort evaluations[J]. Proc Ins Mech Engi, Part D: J Auto Engineering, 2023, 237(4): 706-721.
[17]	AO Di, WONG Pakkin, HUANG Wei, et al. Analysis of co-relation between objective measurement and subjective assessment for dynamic comfort of vehicles[J]. Int’l J Autom Tech, 2019, 21(11): 1553-1567.
[18]	邬明宇, 杜永昌, 尹航, 等. 车辆IMU软测量技术精度分析[J]. 哈尔滨工业大学学报, 2022, 54(1): 14-21.
	WU Mingyu, DU Yongchang, YIN Hang, et al. Accuracy analysis of vehicle IMU soft measurement technology[J]. J Harbin Inst Tech, 2022, 54(1): 14-21. (in Chinese)
[19]	卢凡, 陈思忠. 汽车路面激励的时域建模与仿真[J]. 汽车工程, 2015, 37(5): 549-553.
	LU Fan, CHEN Sizhong. Time domain modeling and simulation of automobile road excitation[J]. Autom Engineering, 2015, 37(5): 549-553. (in Chinese)
[20]	LIANG Guanqun, ZHAO Tong, SHANGGUAN Zhengwei, et al. Experimental study of road identification by LSTM with application to adaptive suspension damping control[J]. Mech Syst Signal Proc, 2022, 177(2): Paper No 109197.
[21]	WU Mingyu, CHEN Zhigang, LIU Dongqing, et al. A theoretical model of amplitude-dependent dynamical stiffness for cord-rubber air springs[J]. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part L: J Mat: Des Appl , 2023, 237(2): 425-436.
[22]	WEI Yintao, WU Mingyu, TANG Zhuo, et al. Nonlinear transfer characteristics of air spring struts with high-fidelity quarter-car tests and theoretical modeling[J]. J Vibr Eng Tech, 2023, 11(5): 2453-2465.

车身高度	1.80 m
车身长度	5.04 m
车身宽度	1.76 m
质心高度	0.73 m
质心距前轴距离	1.44 m
质心距左侧轮距离	0.86 m
轮距	1.69 m
轴距	3.01 m
簧上质量	2.22 t
簧下(单悬架)质量	75 kg
前轴轮胎刚度	314 kN/m
俯仰转动惯量	4.80 t·m^-2
侧倾转动惯量	920 kg·m^-2
后轴轮胎刚度	301 kN/m

车身高度	1.80 m
车身长度	5.04 m
车身宽度	1.76 m
质心高度	0.73 m
质心距前轴距离	1.44 m
质心距左侧轮距离	0.86 m
轮距	1.69 m
轴距	3.01 m
簧上质量	2.22 t
簧下(单悬架)质量	75 kg
前轴轮胎刚度	314 kN/m
俯仰转动惯量	4.80 t·m^-2
侧倾转动惯量	920 kg·m^-2
后轴轮胎刚度	301 kN/m

路面	几何平均值 / cm³
水泥路	64
沥青路	87
不平路	256
卵石路A	512
卵石路B	748
比利时路C1	986
比利时路C2	1 024

路面	几何平均值 / cm³
水泥路	64
沥青路	87
不平路	256
卵石路A	512
卵石路B	748
比利时路C1	986
比利时路C2	1 024

路面	位移均方根值 / mm
	左前		右前		左后		右后
	理论	试验	理论	试验	理论	试验	理论	试验
沥青路	5.09	5.38	5.58	6.15	4.71	5.42	5.19	5.48
水泥路	4.33	4.90	5.10	5.96	5.00	4.62	5.35	4.90
不平路	5.58	6.54	6.44	7.02	5.00	4.62	5.35	4.90
卵石路A	7.02	7.50	8.08	7.89	6.54	6.92	6.54	7.49
卵石路B	8.85	9.04	10.05	9.76	8.46	8.94	9.90	9.65
比利时C1	10.00	10.39	11.54	11.15	9.71	10.29	11.06	10.87
比利时C2	10.48	10.03	11.55	11.34	9.90	10.29	10.67	11.44

基于非线性空气弹簧模型的整车仿真与主客观评价

Vehicle simulation and subjective and objective evaluation based on the nonlinear air spring model

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 22

相关文章 4

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

期刊信息

在线期刊

作者中心

审稿中心

联系我们

[1]	胡启国, 陆伟. 基于分段仿射模型的非线性悬架预测控制[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2019, 10(3): 285-292.
[2]	王文林，侯之超，邹军. 汽车空气悬架研究进展：零部件与系统[J]. JASE, 2018, 9(01): 11-24.
[3]	杨欣，许述财，张金换*，马春生. 中国和美国校车国家标准对比及校车座椅动态试验[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2013, 4(2): 152-160.
[4]	陈勇, 陆中奎, 周秋丽. 两后轮驱动的电动轮汽车的动力学建模与仿真分析[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2010, 1(2): 158-162.

v / (km·h^-1)	I / A	位移均方根值 / mm
		左前		右前		左后		右后
		理论	试验	理论	试验	理论	试验	理论	试验
50	0.0	10.56	9.63	11.93	11.34	9.31	10.11	10.08	11.08
50	1.0	12.41	12.01	13.58	12.98	12.35	12.55	13.72	13.12
50	1.8	15.65	16.24	17.02	17.62	15.59	17.58	15.76	17.36
80	0.0	11.29	13.00	11.86	11.26	11.03	11.83	12.20	11.80
80	1.0	13.33	12.23	13.11	12.11	12.87	12.47	13.25	12.65
80	1.8	18.76	17.67	19.95	17.46	18.12	17.11	18.89	17.29

v / (km·h^-1)	I / A	位移均方根值 / mm
		左前		右前		左后		右后
		理论	试验	理论	试验	理论	试验	理论	试验
50	0.0	10.56	9.63	11.93	11.34	9.31	10.11	10.08	11.08
50	1.0	12.41	12.01	13.58	12.98	12.35	12.55	13.72	13.12
50	1.8	15.65	16.24	17.02	17.62	15.59	17.58	15.76	17.36
80	0.0	11.29	13.00	11.86	11.26	11.03	11.83	12.20	11.80
80	1.0	13.33	12.23	13.11	12.11	12.87	12.47	13.25	12.65
80	1.8	18.76	17.67	19.95	17.46	18.12	17.11	18.89	17.29